Who is a Hypocrite

[callmefence]

You are asking me to do the research to support your assertions? You want fries and an apple pie with that as well?

No sir. I am working today and have packed a fine lunch. don't have the time to do the research. And your twisting my words I didn't ask you to do my research .I ask you if it was possible. Which you dodged.

I will say with the Miranda rights not being added until 1966. I can fully oppose the Miranda and still support the constitution as written by it's founders.( No hypocrisy)

And I could dispute the fact that these rights are guaranteed to all men. Simply because many of the founders owned slaves.

In that case Fence you could also oppose the entire bill of rights as they were added 3-4 years after the original constitution was signed and went into affect. Thus they are "amendments". Too many want to scream "I know my rights then disallow those same rights to those they disagree with or simply cherry pick the constitution and accept only those part that they accept. Can't have it both ways guys or the constitution is little more than a joke and do cherry pick it makes it an even bigger joke.

The topic is on the Miranda rights. I still consider this a prisoner of war.
But even in the instances of regular criminal cases I see no reason in evidence or statement s behind withheld because a person has not been informed of those rights by a arresting officer. That is the Miranda right.
It has nothing to do with taking his 5th amendment rights. It has to do with making sure he is aware of that right.
AS A US CITIZEN HE SHOULD BE AWARE.

 

[skyhightree1]

I had Foreign Relations all over the Western Pacific.
:hide:

I hope you didn't catch anything.

LMAO :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[greybeard]

The topic is on the Miranda rights. I still consider this a prisoner of war

I truly wish you were right Fence--that we had had a govt with a backbone enough to actually declare a war in Sept 2001. Unfortunately, that has not been the case since Dec 1941. As evidenced by this discussion (and 100 more like it) all kinds of problems have surfaced related to that simple failing. Not saying it would have cured or prevented everything that we see today, but I sure can't see where it could have possibly made anything any worse.

(from my point of view--it's not too late either--wonder if ya can make such a thing retroactive?)

I really really try to make a distinction between peaceful people and otherwise, but even my patience is getting thin.
I DON'T know the answer, but I do know what we have been doing is not working.

 

[Nesikep]

In that case Fence you could also oppose the entire bill of rights as they were added 3-4 years after the original constitution was signed and went into affect. Thus they are "amendments". Too many want to scream "I know my rights then disallow those same rights to those they disagree with or simply cherry pick the constitution and accept only those part that they accept. Can't have it both ways guys or the constitution is little more than a joke and do cherry pick it makes it an even bigger joke.

:nod: :clap:

 

[Margonme]

You are asking me to do the research to support your assertions? You want fries and an apple pie with that as well?

No sir. I am working today and have packed a fine lunch. don't have the time to do the research. And your twisting my words I didn't ask you to do my research .I ask you if it was possible. Which you dodged.

I will say with the Miranda rights not being added until 1966. I can fully oppose the Miranda and still support the constitution as written by it's founders.( No hypocrisy)

And I could dispute the fact that these rights are guaranteed to all men. Simply because many of the founders owned slaves.

In that case Fence you could also oppose the entire bill of rights as they were added 3-4 years after the original constitution was signed and went into affect. Thus they are "amendments". Too many want to scream "I know my rights then disallow those same rights to those they disagree with or simply cherry pick the constitution and accept only those part that they accept. Can't have it both ways guys or the constitution is little more than a joke and do cherry pick it makes it an even bigger joke.

TB, Thanks for returning to the original issue. I did not intend this to be specifically about miranda rights. I was curious if the Constitutionalist were as dedicated to their convictions as they profess when the subject was a terrorist. CB, proved his dedication in a succinct post to kick this off. I think the results are commendable.

 

[TexasBred]

No sir. I am working today and have packed a fine lunch. don't have the time to do the research. And your twisting my words I didn't ask you to do my research .I ask you if it was possible. Which you dodged.

I will say with the Miranda rights not being added until 1966. I can fully oppose the Miranda and still support the constitution as written by it's founders.( No hypocrisy)

And I could dispute the fact that these rights are guaranteed to all men. Simply because many of the founders owned slaves.

In that case Fence you could also oppose the entire bill of rights as they were added 3-4 years after the original constitution was signed and went into affect. Thus they are "amendments". Too many want to scream "I know my rights then disallow those same rights to those they disagree with or simply cherry pick the constitution and accept only those part that they accept. Can't have it both ways guys or the constitution is little more than a joke and do cherry pick it makes it an even bigger joke.

The topic is on the Miranda rights. I still consider this a prisoner of war.
But even in the instances of regular criminal cases I see no reason in evidence or statement s behind withheld because a person has not been informed of those rights by a arresting officer. That is the Miranda right.
It has nothing to do with taking his 5th amendment rights. It has to do with making sure he is aware of that right.
AS A US CITIZEN HE SHOULD BE AWARE.

Actually the topic is whether or not you believe in the entire constitution and amendments or only those parts you agree with and even those being subject to "your" interpretation and application. (see original post by Ron). Since then it has staggered all over the place. AT present the United States of America has not officially declared war on any country on this earth so there can be no prisoners of war......only common criminals.

 

[backhoeboogie]

His a refresher for anyone who has forgotten the differences between the judicial, executive, and legislative branches.

Some of you folks just have too much overlap.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-stat ... owers.aspx

 

[shaz]

The Crusades predate the United States, it is illogical to associate the crusades with terrorist activities against the United States.

What is messing in someone else's backyard? Securing a reliable Supply of oil does come into the equation but it is much deeper than that. Prior to WW I, the US pursued a policy of isolationism:

Isolationism is the foreign policy position that a nations' interests is best served by keeping the affairs of other countries at a distance. One possible motivation for limiting international involvement is to avoid being drawn into dangerous and otherwise undesirable conflicts. There may also be a perceived benefit from avoiding international trade agreements or other mutual assistance pacts.

After WW II, we started sticking our nose in other world states and their cultures. We supported whoever served our purpose regardless of whether they were scumbags. I hear users here harp about someone getting into their affairs. Well, look in the mirror. This cout try set the bar for getting into other free state's affairs. We promoted dictators, mass murders, etc if it served our purpose.

No one came on our soil and started this crap. That shoe fits us! After a 100 years of meddling in every sovereign country of the middle east, are you surprised they research the used? If any other country in the world did to us what we do to them, I would be right in line to strap a bomb on me and take as many of them as I could with me.

I swear allegiance to the United States of America but I am not going to blindlyrics ignore our arrogant hypocracy.

If you can't understand that islam existed long before the us, and that use of their previous actions is appropriate to demonstrates it's history, you sir are beyond hope of rational thought. Don't attempt to twist my statements into something they are not. If you cannot defend your position as it is, then lick your wounds and move on.

Islam attacked europe... ie the moorish invasion, and islam attacked the us... ie the barbary wars. Both without provication.

Not at one time did i say the us had anything to do with the crusades.

Twist some more Ron.

Kinda seems like most wars in the name of religion are really about resources and religion is the "noble excuse". The Barbary wars were because we wouldn't pay extortion. I don't see how this was religiously motivated.

The Crusades were mostly a counter-attack against Islamic expansion but there were many who used it to build their own personal kingdoms. The Normans from Sicily really took advantage of the situation and are the likely culprits of the muslim/jewish massacre in Jerusalem in the 1st crusade.

 

[TexasBred]

Kinda seems like most wars in the name of religion are really about resources and religion is the "noble excuse". The Barbary wars were because we wouldn't pay extortion. I don't see how this was religiously motivated.

The Crusades were mostly a counter-attack against Islamic expansion but there were many who used it to build their own personal kingdoms. The Normans from Sicily really took advantage of the situation and are the likely culprits of the muslim/jewish massacre in Jerusalem in the 1st crusade.

The Crusades were the only thing that stopped islam from taking over Europe and going forward from there but many of the crusaders let greed enter into the picture and ended up doing little more than raping , pillaging and whatever else it took to accumulate wealth.

 

[Margonme]

The Crusades predate the United States, it is illogical to associate the crusades with terrorist activities against the United States.

What is messing in someone else's backyard? Securing a reliable Supply of oil does come into the equation but it is much deeper than that. Prior to WW I, the US pursued a policy of isolationism:

Isolationism is the foreign policy position that a nations' interests is best served by keeping the affairs of other countries at a distance. One possible motivation for limiting international involvement is to avoid being drawn into dangerous and otherwise undesirable conflicts. There may also be a perceived benefit from avoiding international trade agreements or other mutual assistance pacts.

After WW II, we started sticking our nose in other world states and their cultures. We supported whoever served our purpose regardless of whether they were scumbags. I hear users here harp about someone getting into their affairs. Well, look in the mirror. This cout try set the bar for getting into other free state's affairs. We promoted dictators, mass murders, etc if it served our purpose.

No one came on our soil and started this crap. That shoe fits us! After a 100 years of meddling in every sovereign country of the middle east, are you surprised they research the used? If any other country in the world did to us what we do to them, I would be right in line to strap a bomb on me and take as many of them as I could with me.

I swear allegiance to the United States of America but I am not going to blindlyrics ignore our arrogant hypocracy.

If you can't understand that islam existed long before the us, and that use of their previous actions is appropriate to demonstrates it's history, you sir are beyond hope of rational thought. Don't attempt to twist my statements into something they are not. If you cannot defend your position as it is, then lick your wounds and move on.

Islam attacked europe... ie the moorish invasion, and islam attacked the us... ie the barbary wars. Both without provication.

Not at one time did i say the us had anything to do with the crusades.

Twist some more Ron.

Kinda seems like most wars in the name of religion are really about resources and religion is the "noble excuse". The Barbary wars were because we wouldn't pay extortion. I don't see how this was religiously motivated.

The Crusades were mostly a counter-attack against Islamic expansion but there were many who used it to build their own personal kingdoms. The Normans from Sicily really took advantage of the situation and are the likely culprits of the muslim/jewish massacre in Jerusalem in the 1st crusade.

Good Lord. Don't say that. CF will have a fit! Lol.

You are correct. Resources, wealth, and Power underwrites most of the endeavors of mankind.

A guy once told me humans are driven by three motives:
1. Gut
2. Crotch
3. Back pocket

 

[callmefence]

In that case Fence you could also oppose the entire bill of rights as they were added 3-4 years after the original constitution was signed and went into affect. Thus they are "amendments". Too many want to scream "I know my rights then disallow those same rights to those they disagree with or simply cherry pick the constitution and accept only those part that they accept. Can't have it both ways guys or the constitution is little more than a joke and do cherry pick it makes it an even bigger joke.

The topic is on the Miranda rights. I still consider this a prisoner of war.
But even in the instances of regular criminal cases I see no reason in evidence or statement s behind withheld because a person has not been informed of those rights by a arresting officer. That is the Miranda right.
It has nothing to do with taking his 5th amendment rights. It has to do with making sure he is aware of that right.
AS A US CITIZEN HE SHOULD BE AWARE.

Actually the topic is whether or not you believe in the entire constitution and amendments or only those parts you agree with and even those being subject to "your" interpretation and application. (see original post by Ron). Since then it has staggered all over the place. AT present the United States of America has not officially declared war on any country on this earth so there can be no prisoners of war......only common criminals.

I'm sorry tb I read Ron's question as how do you feel about them taking the miranda rights. It says nothing of the entire constitution or its amendments

 

[greybeard]

Miranda in of itself is not spelled out anywhere in the Constitution, but Miranda is based exclusively on the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment. It's regarded by the high court as being "prophylactic" and sweeps beyond what both the 5th and 14th amendments both provide. Odd term and conjures up condoms but the definition fits: A prophylactic rule is a judicially crafted rule that overprotects a constitutional right, and gives more protection than such right might abstractly seem to require on its face, in order to safeguard that constitutional right or improve detection of violations of that right.

This type rule has long standing in the high court, and affects not only the 'custodial interrogation' , but HOW the high court shapes the guarantees and protections from unconstitutional or unjust laws.

There is simply no separating Miranda from the other constitutional protections and guarantees in regard to self incrimination and due process, because one of the tasks before scotus, is to ensure that statute law reflects the result that the constitution requires. The 5th doesn't spell out HOW to obtain the results that amendment requires--the framers left that up to the legislative branch and to common protocol. Removing Miranda weakens if not nullifies the 5th and the 14th amendments. The only way Miranda can be nixed is to replace it by another law or protocol that provides the same or higher results that the 5th requires.

 

[Margonme]

Miranda in of itself is not spelled out anywhere in the Constitution, but Miranda is based exclusively on the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment. It's regarded by the high court as being "prophylactic" and sweeps beyond what both the 5th and 14th amendments both provide. Odd term and conjures up condoms but the definition fits: A prophylactic rule is a judicially crafted rule that overprotects a constitutional right, and gives more protection than such right might abstractly seem to require on its face, in order to safeguard that constitutional right or improve detection of violations of that right.

This type rule has long standing in the high court, and affects not only the 'custodial interrogation' , but HOW the high court shapes the guarantees and protections from unconstitutional or unjust laws.

There is simply no separating Miranda from the other constitutional protections and guarantees in regard to self incrimination and due process, because one of the tasks before scotus, is to ensure that statute law reflects the result that the constitution requires. The 5th doesn't spell out HOW to obtain the results that amendment requires--the framers left that up to the legislative branch and to common protocol. Removing Miranda weakens if not nullifies the 5th and the 14th amendments. The only way Miranda can be nixed is to replace it by another law or protocol that provides the same or higher results that the 5th requires.

Thanks for the explanation. Well done.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

We should change this topic to, Who doesn't know history?


I'm sure you history buffs are already aware of these little facts, from the diplomat meeting with Jefferson himself.

In 1786, Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli's ambassador to Great Britain. They asked this 'diplomat' by what right his nation attacked American ships and enslaved her citizens and why the Muslims held such hostility toward this new nation, with which neither Tripoli nor any of the other Barbary Coast nations had any previous contact. The answer was quite revealing. Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja (the ambassador) replied that Islam:

"Was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur'an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."

But I'm quite sure that he just made that all up on the spot to cover the reason of it just being over resources. Why not just say, we are going to take your resources?


Secondly, why does Iran and Iraq hate each other so much? Oh, thats right...resources. They hate each other so strongly over resources.

I always thought these bombers were saying something like, G_d is the greatest! Playing it back in slow motion, i now realize they were all yelling, We want your resources!

Thanks for clearing this all up.

Any of you history buffs seen pictures of Qutar? Are they doing so poorly because we've held them back?

OPEC had a strangle hold on the most sought after comodity in the modern world, crushing the US in the 70's and it is our fault that they haven't joined the 21st century? Has nothing to do with their fascist form of governments?


I'm enjoying the lessons I'm getting here. Hope you boys keep it up.

 

[callmefence]

Miranda in of itself is not spelled out anywhere in the Constitution, but Miranda is based exclusively on the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment. It's regarded by the high court as being "prophylactic" and sweeps beyond what both the 5th and 14th amendments both provide. Odd term and conjures up condoms but the definition fits: A prophylactic rule is a judicially crafted rule that overprotects a constitutional right, and gives more protection than such right might abstractly seem to require on its face, in order to safeguard that constitutional right or improve detection of violations of that right.

This type rule has long standing in the high court, and affects not only the 'custodial interrogation' , but HOW the high court shapes the guarantees and protections from unconstitutional or unjust laws.

There is simply no separating Miranda from the other constitutional protections and guarantees in regard to self incrimination and due process, because one of the tasks before scotus, is to ensure that statute law reflects the result that the constitution requires. The 5th doesn't spell out HOW to obtain the results that amendment requires--the framers left that up to the legislative branch and to common protocol. Removing Miranda weakens if not nullifies the 5th and the 14th amendments. The only way Miranda can be nixed is to replace it by another law or protocol that provides the same or higher results that the 5th requires.

I thought Miranda was the requirement of Leo.
To inform you of your constitutional rights.
If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong with my hat in hand.
I certainly don't mind being schooled by greybeard.

 

[Margonme]

We should change this topic to, Who doesn't know history?


I'm sure you history buffs are already aware of these little facts, from the diplomat meeting with Jefferson himself.

In 1786, Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli's ambassador to Great Britain. They asked this 'diplomat' by what right his nation attacked American ships and enslaved her citizens and why the Muslims held such hostility toward this new nation, with which neither Tripoli nor any of the other Barbary Coast nations had any previous contact. The answer was quite revealing. Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja (the ambassador) replied that Islam:

"Was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur'an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."

But I'm quite sure that he just made that all up on the spot to cover the reason of it just being over resources. Why not just say, we are going to take your resources?


Secondly, why does Iran and Iraq hate each other so much? Oh, thats right...resources. They hate each other so strongly over resources.

I always thought these bombers were saying something like, G_d is the greatest! Playing it back in slow motion, i now realize they were all yelling, We want your resources!

Thanks for clearing this all up.

Any of you history buffs seen pictures of Qutar? Are they doing so poorly because we've held them back?

OPEC had a strangle hold on the most sought after comodity in the modern world, crushing the US in the 70's and it is our fault that they haven't joined the 21st century? Has nothing to do with their fascist form of governments?


I'm enjoying the lessons I'm getting here. Hope you boys keep it up.

You are welcome.

 

[Nesikep]

Fascist governments that we support perhaps?

Lets take Quadaffi in Libya.. He was working on an african united currency, and it wasn't to be controlled by Rothchilds.. Not a good thing if you want an unstable region, or one that isn't permanently indebted to you.

One thing I've found is that dictators, unlike politicians, want things to be profitable, and they want to stay in power for as long as possible. It means they have to keep the people just happy (or scared) enough to not get overthrown.. beyond that, their best interests are also pretty well aligned with their country's best interests.

Now compare this to the "democratic" west with elected officials.. They get paid regardless of how well their policies work in real life, they're essentially immune to prosecution, and they continue to receive pensions after they are FINALLY ousted... There really is no way they can lose.. the greatest risk is not getting elected for another term, which really doesn't matter to them, they'll just get appointed to some other branch of gov't to be on the teat a while longer.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

Nesi, two seperate issues.

I agree, we were better off with Quaddaffi, he started out as an enemy to the west, but came around to being someone that could be worked with.

Why was he removed? It wasn't resources. It was to allow the vaccum to be filled by whom the powers that be were supporting behind the scenes. Think ISIS. That isn't a western form of government. Why do globalists align themselves with fascists? It isn't so much banking. The money is imaginary anyway.

He wasn't removed by anyone I support. And I don't support his removal. So I firmly believe we aren't as far apart on this as you think.

What I take exception with, is that we won't be bothered if we just crawl up into a ball in the corner. That theory was dispelled within the first 30 years of our existence.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

The recent actions of the current administration that have bolstered the caos in the region and funded Iran, I do not consider actions made in Americas interests. Therefor, unAmerican.

 

[greybeard]

I thought Miranda was the requirement of Leo.
To inform you of your constitutional rights.
If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong with my hat in hand.
I certainly don't mind being schooled by greybeard.

You are correct, it is a requirement that leo inform the suspect of his rights--but that has not always been the case. Before the Miranda vs State of Arizona Scotus ruling, jurisdictions routinely violated suspects' 5th and 6th amendments by simply not mentioning them even if the suspect obviously had neither the education to know or understand his rights. There was no uniform federal or state statutes requiring leo to inform the suspects of those basic rights, so it was often in the investigator's interest not to do so, especially at the point of arrest. There was also, up to that point no legal recourse for someone who was convicted without being Mirandized upon being placed in custody, no chance of the conviction being overturned on appeal, thus no reprecussions for depts that did not inform the suspect. Ernesto Miranda, the convicted kidnapper who the court case was named for, was an adult, with an 8th grade education, and a history of mental problems. He was not informed of his rights, as was the practice of the day, and it is very possible he wouldn't have understood them without having them explained to him. He allegedly confessed to the crimes after a 2 hour interrogation, and was convicted solely on those confessions. A 73 yr old pro bono lawyer took his case, appealed the conviction to the Arizona supreme court and that court let the conviction stand.

After that, aclu lawyers, at the request of the older laywer, took the case and pursued it to SCOTUS. Arizona's state lawyer
argued that only the 6th amendment was at stake and flat stated in front of the bench the following: " Forcing police to advise suspects of their rights would seriously obstruct public safety, and on the 2nd day of deliberation, Solicitor General Marshall, representing the federal govt told the supreme court justices:that the government did not have the resources to appoint a lawyer for every indigent person who was accused of a crime.

SCOTUS disagreed, and went so far as to write out suggestions for what police were to tell and present to those under arrest and those in custody but not yet arrested.
Chief Justice Earl Warren June 13, 1966 wrote the opinion in Miranda v. Arizona. The decision was in favor of Miranda. It stated that:
The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.
It was only on that day in 1966, 175 years after the Fifth Amendment came to be, that the Miranda thing we take for granted today, first began.

(Ernesto Miranda was retried, with other evidence and found guilty a 2nd time and served a long prison sentence)