They Caught The Times Square Bomber

Unabogie said:
Yeah, that's it. And his first thought when deciding which bit of sarcasm to use was this?

Your interpretation is suspect.
Click to expand...

My guess was he was going for shock value.

Guess we'll just have to wait for him to reply but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
 
KingMerv00 said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Fruits" doctrine? Are you sure you're not thinking of his Carmen Miranda rights?
 
Darth Rotor said:
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.
Click to expand...



Oh, I absolutely agree. And for the local police, reading Miranda is all but an automatic reflex. I would hope, however, that some sort of policy has been worked up by the FBI ragrding whether and when they get brought in and whether the locals have *any* real interaction (apart from public safety issues) until a decision is made on whether to proceed with or without the warnings.

I think there can be legitimate cases where intelligence issues may take the forefront over the criminal prosecution, but it would be rare. I don't this came anywhere near to getting there; McCain appears to be spouting off to look tough.
 
Unabogie said:
Because the "*Teabaggers" will be the people making the accusations tomorrow. Or so my prediction goes.


*Note: I make very little distinction between the GOP and Teabaggers. I agree with Gingrich that the Teabaggers are the "militant wing" of the GOP.
Click to expand...

"Shahzad was on board a Dubai-bound flight that was taxiing away from the gate at Kennedy Airport late Monday when federal authorities took him into custody, law enforcement officials said. Federal officials had placed him on a "no-fly" list hours before his arrest."

"Holder said Shahzad was talking to investigators, providing them with valuable information, The FBI read Shahzad his constitutional rights after he provided the information, and he continued to cooperate, FBI Deputy Director John Pistole said."

"New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, while refusing to criticize agencies, said the suspect was "clearly on the plane and shouldn't have been." Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declined to say how Shahzad was able to board the flight if he was on the No Fly list."


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36892505/ns/us_news-security/

If SHS Napolitano screwed up, again, is MSNBC at fault for even mentioning Napolitano in their story?
 
Last edited:
NoZed Avenger said:
Oh, I absolutely agree. And for the local police, reading Miranda is all but an automatic reflex. I would hope, however, that some sort of policy has been worked up by the FBI ragrding whether and when they get brought in and whether the locals have *any* real interaction (apart from public safety issues) until a decision is made on whether to proceed with or without the warnings.

I think there can be legitimate cases where intelligence issues may take the forefront over the criminal prosecution, but it would be rare. I don't this came anywhere near to getting there; McCain appears to be spouting off to look tough.
Click to expand...

As someone who once voted for McCain in the GOP primary in 2000, I have to agree. It's showboating.
 
dudalb said:
As someone who once voted for McCain in the GOP primary in 2000, I have to agree. It's showboating.
Click to expand...

Why? Why can't it be that he actually believes that?

Is there any reason to think that John McCain does not think that people arrested for terrorism should not have Miranda rights?
 
pgwenthold said:
Why? Why can't it be that he actually believes that?

Is there any reason to think that John McCain does not think that people arrested for terrorism should not have Miranda rights?
Click to expand...

Yes.

He didn't say a word when Scott Roeder or the Hutaree militia got theirs. Nor did he ever say anything during Bush's administration, when hundreds of trials took place.
 
Unabogie said:
Yes.

He didn't say a word when Scott Roeder or the Hutaree militia got theirs. Nor did he ever say anything during Bush's administration, when hundreds of trials took place.
Click to expand...

How many of them had Miranda rights read to them?
 
Madalch said:
"Fruits" doctrine? Are you sure you're not thinking of his Carmen Miranda rights?
Click to expand...

244zdw6.jpg
 
pgwenthold said:
How many of them had Miranda rights read to them?
Click to expand...

All of them. How do you think they were convicted in civilian courts? But I notice you ignored my point. John McCain didn't utter a peep when the Hutaree got their rights read to them. And they just made bond, which means some of them will go free pending trial. Where is his outrage for that?
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
Joe Lieberman, not quote content with the level of stupid in the debate thus far, decides to add some of his own:



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?
Click to expand...
I will quote from the article you linked to show where you went horribly wrong:
Lieberman said that the revocation of citizenship would not be automatic and there would be a right to go to court and to appeal the decision.
Click to expand...
I also see nothing in there about this happening before being proved guilty either.
 
Thunder said:
um...just because he is Pakistani...doesn't mean he wasn't a Tea Bagger.
Click to expand...
Right.
neda-death-iran-vl-vertical.jpg​
And just because she disliked the President of Iran doesn't mean shes not a Tea Bagger ...

You need a new sig.

Here's a suggestion:
This post was brought to you by parky76 enterprises: supplying inanity to the internet at no cost to the user
Click to expand...

DR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom