They Caught The Times Square Bomber

Unabogie said:
Because the "*Teabaggers" will be the people making the accusations tomorrow. Or so my prediction goes.
Click to expand...

No, it would be those uppity Negroes who would be making those accusations tomorrow. Or so my prediction goes. I'm surprised there's no "Blacks" tag in this post.

Anyway, if he's in fact the bomber -- which right now may, or may not, be true -- the usual folks will be screaming "Racism!!!!!" really really loud to try and hide the fact that (again, if it is him) it's yet another terrorist from the religion of peace.
 
Last edited:
NoZed Avenger said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050400192.html?hpid=topnews

Two people in Pakistan reportedly picked up.

But it looks like the initial questioning was done without Miranda.
Click to expand...
Does that make Senator McCain accidentally right? :confused: I am still of the opinion that he let his mouth overtemp his brain in the Imus segment.

That's not a first either ...

Nozed, you make an interesting point on risk management, at national level, but look at this from the perspective of the cops who pick him up.

If they have strong reason to think he's the perp, these detectives are on the case and have a chance to get the bomber guy. You think they want to jeopardize their collar of a high publicity jerk/crook? Think of this. They don't Mirandize him, and three months later the case begins to crack due to fruits of poison tree, and such.

Cops left holding dirty end of stick.

DR
 
Last edited:
NoZed Avenger said:
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.
Click to expand...

I just meant that Miranda talk, in a thread titled "They caught the Times Square Bomber," when that bomber has been read his rights, seemed moot. I'm staying out of discussions on Scott Roeder or the Hutus or "teabaggers" or whatever.

Call me crazy; I apparently missed beer frame. :bowl:
 
I didn't read the article but...

NoZed Avenger said:
But it looks like the initial questioning was done without Miranda.
Click to expand...

That's not automatically unconstitutional. Initial questioning is often done without Miranda. Miranda is not necessary until the suspect is in custody. It is entirely possible they talked to them before they were arrested.
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
If they have strong reason to think he's the perp, these detectives are on the case and have a chance to get the bomber guy. You think they want to jeopardize their collar of a high publicity jerk/crook? Think of this. They don't Mirandize him, and three months later the case begins to crack due to fruits of poison tree, and such.

Cops left holding dirty end of stick.

DR
Click to expand...

See my post above.

Could someone quote the part of article where it gives the exact nature of their questioning? I don't have time to read the whole article right now.
 
Last edited:
This is all I found, on bloomberg.

The suspect was questioned without first receiving his Miranda warnings under a federal public safety exception, the person said. The warnings include that a suspect has the right to remain silent and representation by an attorney. He later received his Miranda warnings following an initial interrogation, the person said.

Jane Harman, chairwoman of a House of Representatives subcommittee on homeland security and intelligence, said Shahzad was subjected to secondary screening when he returned from Pakistan last year and information collected then helped law enforcement track him down this week.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...loomberg1376-L1WUYO0YHQ0W-1.DTL#ixzz0mzcUkQra
 
Joe Lieberman, not quote content with the level of stupid in the debate thus far, decides to add some of his own:
If you've joined an enemy of the United States in attacking the United States and trying to kill Americans, I think you should sacrifice your rights of citizenship.
Click to expand...


Here's my first question for Joe: If a U.S. citizen has yet to be proven guilty of "join[ing] an enemy of the United States in attacking the United States and trying to kill Americans" by what method do we determine they have done so in order to then strip them of their citizenship?

Here's my second question: Should this standard be applied to the Hutaree Militia, or the Oklahoma State Legislature?
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
The suspect was questioned without first receiving his Miranda warnings under a federal public safety exception, the person said.
Click to expand...

That's a little weird. The public safety exception is usually only for fairly imminent danger. I wonder what was going on.

I'm sure no one cares but: NY vs. Quarles
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
The suspect was questioned without first receiving his Miranda warnings under a federal public safety exception, the person said. The warnings include that a suspect has the right to remain silent and representation by an attorney. He later received his Miranda warnings following an initial interrogation, the person said.

Jane Harman, chairwoman of a House of Representatives subcommittee on homeland security and intelligence, said Shahzad was subjected to secondary screening when he returned from Pakistan last year and information collected then helped law enforcement track him down this week.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...loomberg1376-L1WUYO0YHQ0W-1.DTL#ixzz0mzcUkQra
Click to expand...
This makes Senator McCain's comments look more foolish, not less. He might have done some checking before opening his yap ... but then, he's a Senator. :p

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
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.
Click to expand...

So the opinions of trivial figures like US senators and recent presidential nominees is not relevant? A broad section of America does not support Mirranda rights for terrorism suspects.
 
KingMerv00 said:
That's a little weird. The public safety exception is usually only for fairly imminent danger. I wonder what was going on.
Click to expand...
Well, the guy had left a van with the engine running and a bomb in it in New York City... Why wouldn't they want to make sure it was just one? Wouldn't want kids going joy riding if he left his car running at JFK or something.
 
carlitos said:
Well, the guy had left a van with the engine running and a bomb in it in New York City... Why wouldn't they want to make sure it was just one? Wouldn't want kids going joy riding if he left his car running at JFK or something.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it was something like that. My question wasn't meant to imply I doubted the cops. I was just curious what they asked and what was going on.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
No, it would be those uppity Negroes who would be making those accusations tomorrow. Or so my prediction goes. I'm surprised there's no "Blacks" tag in this post.
Click to expand...

Wow.

And so it pops out, almost as acid reflux...

Now what do you suppose made this guy go there, folks?
 
ponderingturtle said:
So you support the party that is very broadly against the very right you were making the whole stink about? You really must not pay attention to politics.
Click to expand...
No, I voted for John McCain. That is what I stated, and yet here you go again, dishonestly, attempting to say something else and attribute it to me.

Do try to keep up, and stop with the "so" strawman BS.

You really need to try and learn that people don't all see the world in partisan black and white.

Maybe you do, but I don't.

As to what the GOP is broadly against, you are invited to derail into that topic in another thread. That is their problem, not mine.
KingMerv00 said:
I usually consider nuance a good thing. Why are you holding that against Darth?
Click to expand...
I suspect he doesn't like getting caught at his game playing.

ETA: To be fair, PT's point on McCain and talking points is most likely right. Even with the game playing, PT can still deliver good points.

DR
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom