Answer:
they belie we finnna bommmb errrrrbody
Explanation:
The case <em>Miranda v. Arizona (1966)</em> was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court in which the court established that prosecutors cannot use a person's statements made in response to interrogation in police custody as evidence at their trial, unless the person was informed of what is known as "Miranda warning," but voluntarily waived these rights.
A "Miranda warning" is an explanation given to people arrested that informs them of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning. It also informs them of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning. The court's ruling protect those accused of a crime because it prevents them from incriminating themselves. It also reminds them of the importance of an attorney for achieving a successful trial.
Answer:
D German submarines were sinking even neutral boats with no warning.
Explanation:
We perceive that a great breach has been made in the moral and physical systems by the introduction of moral and physical evil; how or why, we know not; so, however, it is, and it certainly seems proper that this breach should be closed and order restored.
That men should pray and fight for their own freedom, and yet keep others in slavery, is certainly acting a very inconsistent, as well as unjust and, perhaps, impious part.
It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.
