They Caught The Times Square Bomber

Darth Rotor said:
Cite McCain's statement, please. (Maybe he should have retired after the 2008 election, if he's doing what you claim he is ... )

DR
Click to expand...

The arrest is already causing ripples inside the Beltway as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Tuesday morning it would have been a "serious mistake" if Shahzad was read his Miranda rights when he was arrested.
Click to expand...


link
 
Darth Rotor said:
I see, somebody else, a group of "they" defined within your brain housing group, but you chose to respond to me.

Got it.

DR
Click to expand...

And you seem to be focused on being ignorant of the direct goal of many on the right. You must never pay attention to the political discourse when such an arrest is made, so why are you starting now? Or will you promptly forget all about the attempts of those on the right to again argue that some criminals don't deserve rights?
 
ponderingturtle said:
link
Click to expand...
The arrest is already causing ripples inside the Beltway as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Tuesday morning it would have been a "serious mistake" if Shahzad was read his Miranda rights when he was arrested.

"Obviously that would be a serious mistake...at least until we find out as much information we have," McCain said during an appearance on "Imus in the Morning" when asked whether the suspect should have had his rights read to him.

"Don't give this guy his Miranda rights until we find out what it's all about," McCain added.
Click to expand...
I think a facepalm is about the best response to this.

I wonder if he has called the CIA, and asked get Jack Bauer on the case as soon as he can ...

DR
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
And you seem to be focused on being ignorant of the direct goal of many on the right. You must never pay attention to the political discourse when such an arrest is made, so why are you starting now? Or will you promptly forget all about the attempts of those on the right to again argue that some criminals don't deserve rights?
Click to expand...
No idea what bug crawled up your backside, but within this discussion, I suggest that if you wish to respond to something I said, then responding to my post and what I said is a good idea.

If you wish to respond to what somebody else said, or a position they took, then by all means do so, but don't attempt to attribute it to me, nor attempt to associate me with someone else's position. To do so is not only dishonest, but a standard habit of yours.

Got it?

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
I think a facepalm is about the best response to this.

I wonder if he has called the CIA, and asked get Jack Bauer on the case as soon as he can ...

DR
Click to expand...

I think mr Bauer will figure heavily in the arguments for how we should treat such people yet again.

The narrative they have grasped onto is that Obama is weak on terrorism so they will do what ever it takes to be viewed as "Strong on Terrorism". So you get hypocrisy about how the shoe vs underwear bombers should be treated and so on.
 
Darth Rotor said:
No idea what bug crawled up your backside, but within this discussion, I suggest that if you wish to respond to something I said, then responding to my post and what I said is a good idea.

If you wish to respond to what somebody else said, or a position they took, then by all means do so, but don't attempt to attribute it to me, nor attempt to associate me with someone else's position. To do so is not only dishonest, but a standard habit of yours.

Got it?

DR
Click to expand...

You are being remarkably ignorant, and focusing on a single word choice of you instead of one. That first you was a generic you, hence the conditional before it. If you did not think that he deserved civil rights then your idea that not mirrandizing him would cause a problem.

That was the fault in your original statement you assumed that everyone would believe that if he was not mirrandized he would be let go. Clearly people like John McCain do not agree with the logic that if he is not mirrandized he must be released.

So instead of correctly identifying the logical flaw in your statement that I was talking about, you decided to flaunt your ignorance of contemporary political discourse with regards to terrorism suspects.

Congrats now everyone knows you don't pay attention.
 
NoZed Avenger said:
This is kind of funny, since the earlier thread on this topic had one or more people blaming "teabaggers" for doing the bombing in the first place. Didn't Bloomberg guess it was someone unhappy about health care?
Click to expand...

I don't care for the teabaggers very much, but still, I find it Ironic that some liberals react to the teabaggers in the exact same over the top, accuse them of anything, manner they condemn the teabaggers for using against Obama. Partisan blinders,confirmation bias and hypocrisy are wonderful things.
Not to mention trying to steer any discussion on any topic into an attack on someone you don't like......
 
Last edited:
Unabogie said:
My thread is about how Teabaggers spin everything as a negative (remember the Somali pirates and how they tried to turn that into something bad for Obama?)
Click to expand...

Then you should have named the thread you started differently.

Maybe we should start a thread about how Truthers will spin this, how Jihadist apologists will spin this, how the KKK will spin this, how Socialists will spin this, how paranoid anti-Teabagger Liberals will spin this, how...
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
Face palm where? Upside McCain's head?

Seriously, some people thought this guy should be president. You voted for him, right?
Click to expand...

I don't actually think he would be saying this if he was president. He is saying this to undermine the democratic party, not as a position he actually holds.
 
ponderingturtle said:
I don't actually think he would be saying this if he was president. He is saying this to undermine the democratic party, not as a position he actually holds.
Click to expand...

I can actually see a point, though I don't think I would agree in this case.

Assume a guy (not necessarily this one) is caught in what is believed to be a terror plot.
If the guy can give useful intelligence, it might be handy to question him without the Miranda warning. Anything he said could not be used against him at trial, but it might provide valuable intelligence about other attacks and potentially enable the authorities to stop the attack. You would have to risk not being able to prosecute the guy in custody and trade that off against any future gains.

In this case, I don't think it wouldbe worth it. I would, however, like some indication that someone with the FBI or CIA has at least put some thought into the issue and made some decisions/guidelines.
 
NoZed Avenger said:
I can actually see a point, though I don't think I would agree in this case.

Assume a guy (not necessarily this one) is caught in what is believed to be a terror plot.
If the guy can give useful intelligence, it might be handy to question him without the Miranda warning. Anything he said could not be used against him at trial, but it might provide valuable intelligence about other attacks and potentially enable the authorities to stop the attack. You would have to risk not being able to prosecute the guy in custody and trade that off against any future gains.

In this case, I don't think it wouldbe worth it. I would, however, like some indication that someone with the FBI or CIA has at least put some thought into the issue and made some decisions/guidelines.
Click to expand...

I'd give McCain or any other Right Winger the benefit of the doubt for taking this positon if they'd applied the same rhetoric to the Hutaree Militia or Scott Roeder.
 
This discussion is all moot as the FBI has said that he has been advised of his rights and continues to cooperate. Resume strawman bowling league in 3, 2, 1...
 
Darth Rotor said:
If he wasn't Mirandized, he walks.
Click to expand...

That's not right. Any evidence they've obtained pre-arrest can still be used against him in court. Failure to Mirandize only results in the suppression of confessions and the fruits of interrogations.

Hell, there may even be exceptions to the fruits doctrine. (inevitable discovery etc.)

This dude's not walking anywhere.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
You are being remarkably ignorant, and focusing on a single word choice of you instead of one.
Click to expand...
If he wasn't Mirandized, he walks. That would be bad.
Click to expand...
You responded to that with your smart arsed remark that refers to what someone else, whomever that may be, feels or does not feel about the rights of someone picked up by our cops on our soil involving an event of criminal nature.

I am not going to put up with your asinine games any time soon, since you have been playing these games as long as I can remember participating on these forums.

Go play them with somebody else.

You want to respond to my post? Address what I am talking about, not somebody else. Or, play your games and get called on it, yet again. You don't get any benefit of the doubt. You've shown your hand, long since.

@ KingMerv: thanks for that. I am glad you pointed that out. It is not a certainty that failure to Mirandize will cost the DA or whomever a successful case ... if this suspect is the perp they are looking for.

DR
 
carlitos said:
This discussion is all moot as the FBI has said that he has been advised of his rights and continues to cooperate. Resume strawman bowling league in 3, 2, 1...
Click to expand...

The discussion is moot as to this guy, but not as a policy.

Also, since no one has (to my knowledge) argued that Miranda will prevent all cooperation or that its absence would guarantee it, it looks like you're already on frame eight, yourself.
 
The arrest is already causing ripples inside the Beltway as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Tuesday morning it would have been a "serious mistake" if Shahzad was read his Miranda rights when he was arrested.
Click to expand...

That is particularly disgusting coming from a man who spent time in a prison without rights.
 
pgwenthold said:
You voted for him, right?
Click to expand...
Yes, I did. What's that to you, pg?

A vote for a candidate, which is also a vote against his opponent, does not imply that any and every subsequent utterance of that candidate is mine to defend. Just wanted to be clear on that. If you bother to go back to some of the 2008 election discussions, you might find me critical of McCain's campaign, among other things. We don't get to vote for perfect candidates, haven't since I started voting back in the 70's.

Got it?

PS, I also voted for Kinky Friedman in 2006. That doesn't make any of his curious statements mine to defend either.

DR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom