swishnicholson wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The terrorist guy looked like a real fish based on the clip. If Nate really loved America, he would've pinned him.

I know, I mean winning on points. Is that what we do now?

jamiethekiller wrote:Nate Fights Terrorist

Glenn Beck has information that indicates that Douchebag actually WON this match 15-3 but the video has been altered to show him losing so that the potential jury pool is poisoned against him. He is giving Barack until midnight tomorrow to come clean and provide the unaltered footage or else Beck will expose Obama for the lying Muslim that he is.

I think we need to wait for threecount's opinion on this video before we go making comments

Slowhand wrote:I think we need to wait for threecount's opinion on this video before we go making comments

"Needs more elbow drops and whores"

pacino wrote:glenn greenwald appears upset at obama and the DOJ for things they didnt do in this case, regarding Miranda rights. they didnt roll anything back here, nor did they abuse anything, but he's still ranting and raving in his columns.

I presume both he and ACLU are concerned that if the decision to question without informing a suspect of their rights continues to be used, you get closer to a situation where you're happy to arrrest people and question them without charge, solely on the basis of 'perceived threat to public safety'.

That is a bad habit to get into. No, the US Govt aren't rolling anything back, but you are exploiting an existing legal judgement, reapplying it to a different situation and in the process curtailing civil liberties. Greenwald and the ACLU are right to make noise about it. Arresting, questioning and holding without charge are not good things to do. Furthermore, they don't help the fight against committed terrorism. For example, see the UK government's Prevention of Terrorism Act which allowed suspects to be detained for up to 7 days without charge if the police decided it was fair. These acts, which were put in place in 1974, resulted in a series of false imprisonments which didn't get corrected till at least 10 years later (most famously, Gerry Conlon and the other 'suspects' in the Guildford pub bombings as made famous in In the Name of the Father).

All you get when you lock down those civil liberties is more suspicion of the authorities, and more recruitment to terorrist causes. PTA was up there with Bloody Sunday for IRA recruitment.

America remains an ethnically diverse nation. Anything you do to encourage the communities within that nation to suspect the authorities of targeting them makes America a shittier, more suspicious place to be.

just reread the greenwald article and the leaked DOJ guidance to FBI agents. That is bad stuff right there.

It expands on the existing grounds for questioning someone on the basis of determining if there are any immediate threats to public safety to include questioning about general intelligence matters, depending on whether the FBI or DOJ think it's appropriate.

Sounds awfully like interrogation and detention without charge to me. Were I an American citizen, I would be lobbying hard to prevent the government from having that power.

Good points Wiz

I get what you, and he, are saying, but that didn't happen here. they asked about others still out there or bombs still out there. they didnt use it as a momen to get into the general 'war' on terror. taking this to bring up something completely different is fine, i guess, but it seems like trying to fit square into round just to drum the beat on GG's pet issue.

the creeping expansion of surveillance and erosion of rights is worrisome, but i dont see how this event highlights it all that much. everything was pretty much by the book.

pacino wrote:I get what you, and he, are saying, but that didn't happen here. they asked about others still out there or bombs still out there. they didnt use it as a momen to get into the general 'war' on terror. taking this to bring up something completely different is fine, i guess, but it seems like trying to fit square into round just to drum the beat on GG's pet issue.

I can only judge his position from the column I read in the Guardian, but it seems to me that his point is not that this questioning was Obama/DOJ were using the situation to roll back civil liberties Rather he seems to be saying that what happened is now SOP, and has been since 2010.

It's easy to shrug it off and say this isn't an issue since this guy is clearly the bomber. But the bottom line is that the guy was questioned by a specialised interrogation team before being read his rights, and according to that memo, that info can (and was) used in court against him (in so far as in addition to the bombing, he's also been charged with a plot to do more damage in new york).

On the basis of what I've seen so far, there's little doubt that this guy is the bomber. But if the wrong person is in the frame, then they're going to be hit hard with interrogation and likely fess up to something they didn't do. Then get charged with it in court. And I'm not hypothesising here, because this happened with at least 17 people in similar situations in the UK (that's the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, and the Maguire Seven for reference). It will happen. It's not good. Greenwald and the ALCU are right to make noise about it, not least because history has shown that these increased powers do not prevent terrorist activity. The UK ran the whole gamut of this in the 70s: detention without charge, Diplock courts (losing the right to trial by jury), internment on the basis of being SUSPECTED of being a member of a terrorist organisation. And yet the IRA were still operationally capable enough to nearly kill Thatcher in the Brighton Hotel Bombing of 1984. And that's just the UK and Northern Ireland. Ask Putin how his problems with the Chechens are getting on after over what, 15 years of throwing the kitchen sink at them?

jerseyhoya wrote:Officials Believe Suspects Plotted on Their Own in Boston

Elmirza Khozhugov, 26, the ex-husband of Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s younger sister, Ailina, said that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had been enamored of conspiracy theories, and that he was also concerned by the wars in the Middle East.

“He was looking for connections between the wars in the Middle East and oppression of Muslim population around the globe,” Mr. Khozhugov said in an e-mail. “It was very hard to argue with him on themes somehow connected to religion. On the other hand, he did not hate Christians. He respected their faith. Never said anything bad about other religions. But he was angry that the world pictures Islam as a violent religion.”

Well, this is the same guy who gave up boxing because he thought it was against his religion to punch another man in the face, but two years later had no problem with blowing people up.

Wizlah wrote:

pacino wrote:I get what you, and he, are saying, but that didn't happen here. they asked about others still out there or bombs still out there. they didnt use it as a momen to get into the general 'war' on terror. taking this to bring up something completely different is fine, i guess, but it seems like trying to fit square into round just to drum the beat on GG's pet issue.

I can only judge his position from the column I read in the Guardian, but it seems to me that his point is not that this questioning was Obama/DOJ were using the situation to roll back civil liberties Rather he seems to be saying that what happened is now SOP, and has been since 2010.

It's easy to shrug it off and say this isn't an issue since this guy is clearly the bomber. But the bottom line is that the guy was questioned by a specialised interrogation team before being read his rights, and according to that memo, that info can (and was) used in court against him (in so far as in addition to the bombing, he's also been charged with a plot to do more damage in new york).

On the basis of what I've seen so far, there's little doubt that this guy is the bomber. But if the wrong person is in the frame, then they're going to be hit hard with interrogation and likely fess up to something they didn't do. Then get charged with it in court. And I'm not hypothesising here, because this happened with at least 17 people in similar situations in the UK (that's the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, and the Maguire Seven for reference). It will happen. It's not good. Greenwald and the ALCU are right to make noise about it, not least because history has shown that these increased powers do not prevent terrorist activity. The UK ran the whole gamut of this in the 70s: detention without charge, Diplock courts (losing the right to trial by jury), internment on the basis of being SUSPECTED of being a member of a terrorist organisation. And yet the IRA were still operationally capable enough to nearly kill Thatcher in the Brighton Hotel Bombing of 1984. And that's just the UK and Northern Ireland. Ask Putin how his problems with the Chechens are getting on after over what, 15 years of throwing the kitchen sink at them?

And on the other side of the coin: Report: Dzhokhar Stopped Talking to Investigators Right After Being Read His Miranda Rights.

We'll see if the sources are bs'ing, But the AP says they're bipartisan sources so not trying to make anyone look like an asshole necessarily, and the suspect was talking, and then was read his rights, and then he stopped talking. In this case, it's not a huge deal since it doesn't appear like he's a part of a cell, but in future cases, the more they talk to us the better. And if Mirandizing them stops them from talking, as it seems it might, then don't read them their rights until they've told you everything important. Please.

Wizlah wrote:

pacino wrote:I get what you, and he, are saying, but that didn't happen here. they asked about others still out there or bombs still out there. they didnt use it as a momen to get into the general 'war' on terror. taking this to bring up something completely different is fine, i guess, but it seems like trying to fit square into round just to drum the beat on GG's pet issue.

I can only judge his position from the column I read in the Guardian, but it seems to me that his point is not that this questioning was Obama/DOJ were using the situation to roll back civil liberties Rather he seems to be saying that what happened is now SOP, and has been since 2010.

It's easy to shrug it off and say this isn't an issue since this guy is clearly the bomber. But the bottom line is that the guy was questioned by a specialised interrogation team before being read his rights, and according to that memo, that info can (and was) used in court against him (in so far as in addition to the bombing, he's also been charged with a plot to do more damage in new york).

On the basis of what I've seen so far, there's little doubt that this guy is the bomber. But if the wrong person is in the frame, then they're going to be hit hard with interrogation and likely fess up to something they didn't do. Then get charged with it in court. And I'm not hypothesising here, because this happened with at least 17 people in similar situations in the UK (that's the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, and the Maguire Seven for reference). It will happen. It's not good. Greenwald and the ALCU are right to make noise about it, not least because history has shown that these increased powers do not prevent terrorist activity. The UK ran the whole gamut of this in the 70s: detention without charge, Diplock courts (losing the right to trial by jury), internment on the basis of being SUSPECTED of being a member of a terrorist organisation. And yet the IRA were still operationally capable enough to nearly kill Thatcher in the Brighton Hotel Bombing of 1984. And that's just the UK and Northern Ireland. Ask Putin how his problems with the Chechens are getting on after over what, 15 years of throwing the kitchen sink at them?

I thought my days of being left of pacino were long gone (if this can be cast as a left/right issue) but I think Wiz is right on the money here. You either have faith in your justice system or you don't, and if you start casting it out when things are really, really important then you're headed down a slippery slope. If you think the suspect has too many rights, well, revisit the issue and cast it into law. Equal protection means equal protection, it's pretty clear. And whether or not you "Mirandize" someone shouldn't mean a hoot, you have these rights or you don't, or they aren't actually rights. I hope every citizen knows them and can invoke them- I trust most do and knows they don't have to be called into being by pronouncing magic words or can disappear as long as the imp's name remains a secret.That's not to say THIS suspect was mistreated in any way, and the assertions of extra-judicial interrogation may have been in fact more political appeasement then any necessary or even out of the ordinary measures. But the fact that this appeasement works and that it's almost unanimous that some sort of treatment outside the law was necessary in this case is frightening in itself, since it speaks to a basic distrust of our legal institutions. And if it becomes accepted (or more accepted, since it already is by many) it will certainly result in innocent people being caught up, as well as engendering a disrespect for constitutional procedures that will inevitably corrupt a case and let the guilty go free.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Wizlah wrote:

pacino wrote:I get what you, and he, are saying, but that didn't happen here. they asked about others still out there or bombs still out there. they didnt use it as a momen to get into the general 'war' on terror. taking this to bring up something completely different is fine, i guess, but it seems like trying to fit square into round just to drum the beat on GG's pet issue.

I can only judge his position from the column I read in the Guardian, but it seems to me that his point is not that this questioning was Obama/DOJ were using the situation to roll back civil liberties Rather he seems to be saying that what happened is now SOP, and has been since 2010.

It's easy to shrug it off and say this isn't an issue since this guy is clearly the bomber. But the bottom line is that the guy was questioned by a specialised interrogation team before being read his rights, and according to that memo, that info can (and was) used in court against him (in so far as in addition to the bombing, he's also been charged with a plot to do more damage in new york).

On the basis of what I've seen so far, there's little doubt that this guy is the bomber. But if the wrong person is in the frame, then they're going to be hit hard with interrogation and likely fess up to something they didn't do. Then get charged with it in court. And I'm not hypothesising here, because this happened with at least 17 people in similar situations in the UK (that's the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, and the Maguire Seven for reference). It will happen. It's not good. Greenwald and the ALCU are right to make noise about it, not least because history has shown that these increased powers do not prevent terrorist activity. The UK ran the whole gamut of this in the 70s: detention without charge, Diplock courts (losing the right to trial by jury), internment on the basis of being SUSPECTED of being a member of a terrorist organisation. And yet the IRA were still operationally capable enough to nearly kill Thatcher in the Brighton Hotel Bombing of 1984. And that's just the UK and Northern Ireland. Ask Putin how his problems with the Chechens are getting on after over what, 15 years of throwing the kitchen sink at them?

And on the other side of the coin: Report: Dzhokhar Stopped Talking to Investigators Right After Being Read His Miranda Rights.

We'll see if the sources are bs'ing, But the AP says they're bipartisan sources so not trying to make anyone look like an asshole necessarily, and the suspect was talking, and then was read his rights, and then he stopped talking. In this case, it's not a huge deal since it doesn't appear like he's a part of a cell, but in future cases, the more they talk to us the better. And if Mirandizing them stops them from talking, as it seems it might, then don't read them their rights until they've told you everything important. Please.

And if the person is innocent and is so scared that they admit to things they didn't do? I think you're missing the point.

Did the information they got from him lead to the protection of anyone or stop another attack? Not that I've heard. Is the information worth it if it's from someone who did nothing wrong? Or I guess you are willing to put someone in jail if it makes you feel safer. As was pointed out, mistakes will be made with this type of process because people are dumb and will admit to things they didn't do.

You know what I think? I think we should put all suspects in a wheelbarrow and roll them around a courtyard while signing our national anthem and throwing flower petals at them. It will be just as useful and effective as your plan, and just as nonsensical, yet nobody will be harmed with my method.

I know it's not a popular opinion but maybe it's time we reevaluate our position on the world stage and actually delve into and have a discussion on why individuals feel the need to sacrifice their lives in order to inflict casualties on our soil. The suspect in custody said the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was a prime motivation in being radicalized. OBL cited America stationing troops in their Holy Land. The witness from Yemen testified on Capitol Hill that the indiscriminate drone strikes are terrifying people and causing resentment in the region. The arrogance we portray to the rest of the world is heinous, and there's nothing wrong with listening to the reasons of why these people are becoming so militant. Instead, we scream and chant USA and act like our shit don't stink.

We are the most powerful nation in the world, being targeted by terrorists is an inevitability.

Agreed, but we don't exactly help our own cause either. Unless we want to fight a perpetual War on Terror we should do everything we can to mitigate our chances of being attacked. Invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 based on scant evidence and an expansion of our drone war haven't exactly hurt Al-qaedas ability to recruit.

Monkeyboy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Wizlah wrote:

pacino wrote:I get what you, and he, are saying, but that didn't happen here. they asked about others still out there or bombs still out there. they didnt use it as a momen to get into the general 'war' on terror. taking this to bring up something completely different is fine, i guess, but it seems like trying to fit square into round just to drum the beat on GG's pet issue.

I can only judge his position from the column I read in the Guardian, but it seems to me that his point is not that this questioning was Obama/DOJ were using the situation to roll back civil liberties Rather he seems to be saying that what happened is now SOP, and has been since 2010.

It's easy to shrug it off and say this isn't an issue since this guy is clearly the bomber. But the bottom line is that the guy was questioned by a specialised interrogation team before being read his rights, and according to that memo, that info can (and was) used in court against him (in so far as in addition to the bombing, he's also been charged with a plot to do more damage in new york).

On the basis of what I've seen so far, there's little doubt that this guy is the bomber. But if the wrong person is in the frame, then they're going to be hit hard with interrogation and likely fess up to something they didn't do. Then get charged with it in court. And I'm not hypothesising here, because this happened with at least 17 people in similar situations in the UK (that's the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, and the Maguire Seven for reference). It will happen. It's not good. Greenwald and the ALCU are right to make noise about it, not least because history has shown that these increased powers do not prevent terrorist activity. The UK ran the whole gamut of this in the 70s: detention without charge, Diplock courts (losing the right to trial by jury), internment on the basis of being SUSPECTED of being a member of a terrorist organisation. And yet the IRA were still operationally capable enough to nearly kill Thatcher in the Brighton Hotel Bombing of 1984. And that's just the UK and Northern Ireland. Ask Putin how his problems with the Chechens are getting on after over what, 15 years of throwing the kitchen sink at them?

And on the other side of the coin: Report: Dzhokhar Stopped Talking to Investigators Right After Being Read His Miranda Rights.

We'll see if the sources are bs'ing, But the AP says they're bipartisan sources so not trying to make anyone look like an asshole necessarily, and the suspect was talking, and then was read his rights, and then he stopped talking. In this case, it's not a huge deal since it doesn't appear like he's a part of a cell, but in future cases, the more they talk to us the better. And if Mirandizing them stops them from talking, as it seems it might, then don't read them their rights until they've told you everything important. Please.

And if the person is innocent and is so scared that they admit to things they didn't do? I think you're missing the point.

Did the information they got from him lead to the protection of anyone or stop another attack? Not that I've heard. Is the information worth it if it's from someone who did nothing wrong? Or I guess you are willing to put someone in jail if it makes you feel safer. As was pointed out, mistakes will be made with this type of process because people are dumb and will admit to things they didn't do.

You know what I think? I think we should put all suspects in a wheelbarrow and roll them around a courtyard while signing our national anthem and throwing flower petals at them. It will be just as useful and effective as your plan, and just as nonsensical, yet nobody will be harmed with my method.

I'm not missing the point.

They probably did not obtain any information that led to stopping any attacks. They also didn't force the confession of someone innocent or get information from someone who did nothing wrong. In this case they had found explosives inside their apartment, so making sure there weren't more bombs floating around was good to figure out. Also they could have been working with other people.

In future cases, having something like this when it does appear the suspect is part of an active cell or ongoing plot is extremely important.

jerseyhoya wrote:In future cases, having something like this when it does appear the suspect is part of an active cell or ongoing plot is extremely important.

I'm not seeing the extreme in this. Verbal Kint is who I'm concerned about, not some dipshit 19 year old. And Kint is likely to fuck you up no matter what your legal niceties, so why not read whomever his rights.

In other words, the assertion is that this questioning gimmick returns real value. Lay out the real value, not the hypothetical value or anecdotes, to make the strongest case.

Jerz, utimately are you happy that the police can detain and interrogate suspects without charge and granting the suspects any rights? because as far as I can tell that's what you've had since 2010.

Outside of the principle of upholding the essential rights of anyone living in america, to me it's dangerous because a) police should not have that de jure power (they usually find a de facto way to get it but that at least can be legally contested) and b) it breeds suspicion and hostility in the affected communities. If you want islamic americans to assist you with intelligence, apprehending and interrogating their sons and daughters without charge will not help your goal.

Good article on the Watertown showdown