It Has Begun

[TrueEpic08]

it so explicitly cancels it's own law right there in the wording of the 5th Amendment. how I feel about that is kinda beyond the scope of the discussion I was trying to have, comrade

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, so I may be off in this response, but that grand jury clause does cancel out the ability to apply the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments regarding evidence and legal counsel within a grand jury hearing (I could point to dozens of cases more blatant than this one that have existed pretty much since the founding of the United States, fittingly enough).

The rules of a grand jury, interestingly enough for an element of the first eight amendments, also do not apply for states as they do for people (There are three other parts, two of which relate to legal processes. Everything else has been incorporated against the states).

And honestly, this type of a discussion, although broad, is very relevant for this type of discussion, as it concerns the very process through which law is constructed, preserved and subverted. To have a conversation on topics like this without understanding that broader topic is a bit naive, no?

 

[Soymuscle Mike]

If only they had AK47's to protect themselves

 

[TruStyle]

Its ok becuz they are doing it to keep me safe.

Spoiler

Ill trade it if I can just be safe.

 

[daze23]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, so I may be off in this response, but that grand jury clause does cancel out the ability to apply the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments regarding evidence and legal counsel within a grand jury hearing (I could point to dozens of cases more blatant than this one that have existed pretty much since the founding of the United States, fittingly enough).

The rules of a grand jury, interestingly enough for an element of the first eight amendments, also do not apply for states as they do for people (There are three other parts, two of which relate to legal processes. Everything else has been incorporated against the states).

And honestly, this type of a discussion, although broad, is very relevant for this type of discussion, as it concerns the very process through which law is constructed, preserved and subverted. To have a conversation on topics like this without understanding that broader topic is a bit naive, no?

I understand the things you're getting at, but I'm just trying to make sense of exactly why they're locked up. as it is, their situation seems to fall within the law. how exactly I feel about those laws is another story

in the meantime, other posters have been bringing up NDAA, "that shady law coming into effect", patriot act, "the police state just ratcheted up a notch", etc. when really this issue is nothing 'new'. I understand why people might group these things together, but I also don't think they should use this particular case as a soapbox for other issues. if anything people should be talking about the specific mechanisms that effect this case. I understand that's what your trying to do, and honestly you're more knowledgeable on the subject, so you're crossing bridges I haven't got to yet