Turns out reading Miranda rights works fine after all

[Vast LWC]

Times Square Case Prompts Raids in Northeast - WSJ.com

Mr. Shahzad has been cooperating with prosecutors since his capture two days after the May 1 bombing attempt.

Ahh the wonders of good ol' fashioned police work, without having to go outside the boundaries of the Constitution.

"But wait", you ask, "didn't they read him his Miranda Rights? How can this be?"

Once again, the right-wing extremists are wrong. But then, when aren't they?

 

[Vast LWC]

These new arrests, plus the arrests in Pakistan that immediately followed the bombing, sure seem like the guy is talking to me.

Anyone else have a different opinion?

 

[xsited1]

I want to go on record right now and say that whenever I read something like the following:

"Government officials say..." (In this case, that this terrorist is cooperating with prosecutors.)

That I believe it completely. In fact, I trust the Government implicitly. I bet you do, too.

 

[Vast LWC]

I want to go on record right now and say that whenever I read something like the following:

"Government officials say..." (In this case, that this terrorist is cooperating with prosecutors.)

That I believe it completely. In fact, I trust the Government implicitly. I bet you do, too.

Whatever your suspicions may be, the aftermath of the event certainly strongly indicates that the Government is in fact telling the truth in this matter.

A bevy of arrests like this soon afterwards almost certainly indicates suspect cooperation.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

He was talking long before he was mirandized.

 

[Liability]

Joe the burglar gets caught. He gets arrested and gets his Miranda warnings. He says he understands them but "fuck no" he won't speak without a lawyer.

Bob the Robber gets caught. HE gets arrested and gets his Miranda warnings. He says he
understands them and fuck yeah, he'll be happy to talk to the arresting officers right away and knowingly waives his Miranda rights.

That Bob the Robber was willing to do so is not an argument that giving Miranda warnings is never going to interfere with getting a statement.

Now let's change it from a criminal law issue (like burglars and robbers) to terrorists.

Abdul bin Kamelfucker gets caught and President Obama's idiot policy requires that he NOT be questioned at all until he gets advised of his "Miranda" rights. The Camel sucker thinks to himself, "Holy fucking Jin! These Americans are indeed fucked up!" He then declares, "I Affirm by Mohammed (mumbo jumbo) that I will not speak to you without my lawyer. Appoint one to me now Infidel scum!" No questioning of old Abdul, even though this bastard was caught with all the works for a massive truck-bomb ready to be detonated in lower Manhattan and solid evidence that it was just one of several which had been sent out on suicide missions that very day.

Compare that with Fariq e Deeky, a low level al qaeda cell member caught in a suburb of Buffalo, NY. He has nothing of any appreciable value when caught. No bombs, no plans, no schematics, no nothing. But he gets the Miranda warnings and agrees to speak.

Meanwhile dolts like Vastly Stupid LWC contend that since Fariq is willing to speak WITH Mirandas warnings, therefore Miranda warnings are perfectly ok.

Doesn't help us get any intel from Abdul, though. But, the information we urgently NEED to obtain FROM Abdul is also crucial to saving maybe thousands of lives TODAY. Too bad. Fuck all the innocent civilians. Abdul has "rights."

Freaking stupid libs still cannot wrap their little pinheads around the fact that Miranda warnings are designed with criminal law issues in mind, not national security matters in mind.

 

[Vast LWC]

Joe the burglar gets caught. He gets arrested and gets his Miranda warnings. He says he understands them but "fuck no" he won't speak without a lawyer.

Bob the Robber gets caught. HE gets arrested and gets his Miranda warnings. He says he
understands them and fuck yeah, he'll be happy to talk to the arresting officers right away and knowingly waives his Miranda rights.

That Bob the Robber was willing to do so is not an argument that giving Miranda warnings is never going to interfere with getting a statement.

Now let's change it from a criminal law issue (like burglars and robbers) to terrorists.

Abdul bin Kamelfucker gets caught and President Obama's idiot policy requires that he NOT be questioned at all until he gets advised of his "Miranda" rights. The Camel sucker thinks to himself, "Holy fucking Jin! These Americans are indeed fucked up!" He then declares, "I Affirm by Mohammed (mumbo jumbo) that I will not speak to you without my lawyer. Appoint one to me now Infidel scum!" No questioning of old Abdul, even though this bastard was caught with all the works for a massive truck-bomb ready to be detonated in lower Manhattan and solid evidence that it was just one of several which had been sent out on suicide missions that very day.

Compare that with Fariq e Deeky, a low level al qaeda cell member caught in a suburb of Buffalo, NY. He has nothing of any appreciable value when caught. No bombs, no plans, no schematics, no nothing. But he gets the Miranda warnings and agrees to speak.

Meanwhile dolts like Vastly Stupid LWC contend that since Fariq is willing to speak WITH Mirandas warnings, therefore Miranda warnings are perfectly ok.

Doesn't help us get any intel from Abdul, though. But, the information we urgently NEED to obtain FROM Abdul is also crucial to saving maybe thousands of lives TODAY. Too bad. Fuck all the innocent civilians. Abdul has "rights."

Freaking stupid libs still cannot wrap their little pinheads around the fact that Miranda warnings are designed with criminal law issues in mind, not national security matters in mind.

Having fun with your hypotheticals?

Got any real proof at all to back up your theory?

 

[manu1959]

so when our soilders capture terrorists in afganistan and iraq you want them read their rights.....

 

[rightwinger]

Give the Conservatives a break LWC

They are just upset they didn't get to use electric clamps on his genitals

 

[Liability]

Joe the burglar gets caught. He gets arrested and gets his Miranda warnings. He says he understands them but "fuck no" he won't speak without a lawyer.

Bob the Robber gets caught. HE gets arrested and gets his Miranda warnings. He says he
understands them and fuck yeah, he'll be happy to talk to the arresting officers right away and knowingly waives his Miranda rights.

That Bob the Robber was willing to do so is not an argument that giving Miranda warnings is never going to interfere with getting a statement.

Now let's change it from a criminal law issue (like burglars and robbers) to terrorists.

Abdul bin Kamelfucker gets caught and President Obama's idiot policy requires that he NOT be questioned at all until he gets advised of his "Miranda" rights. The Camel sucker thinks to himself, "Holy fucking Jin! These Americans are indeed fucked up!" He then declares, "I Affirm by Mohammed (mumbo jumbo) that I will not speak to you without my lawyer. Appoint one to me now Infidel scum!" No questioning of old Abdul, even though this bastard was caught with all the works for a massive truck-bomb ready to be detonated in lower Manhattan and solid evidence that it was just one of several which had been sent out on suicide missions that very day.

Compare that with Fariq e Deeky, a low level al qaeda cell member caught in a suburb of Buffalo, NY. He has nothing of any appreciable value when caught. No bombs, no plans, no schematics, no nothing. But he gets the Miranda warnings and agrees to speak.

Meanwhile dolts like Vastly Stupid LWC contend that since Fariq is willing to speak WITH Mirandas warnings, therefore Miranda warnings are perfectly ok.

Doesn't help us get any intel from Abdul, though. But, the information we urgently NEED to obtain FROM Abdul is also crucial to saving maybe thousands of lives TODAY. Too bad. Fuck all the innocent civilians. Abdul has "rights."

Freaking stupid libs still cannot wrap their little pinheads around the fact that Miranda warnings are designed with criminal law issues in mind, not national security matters in mind.

Having fun with your hypotheticals?

Got any real proof at all to back up your theory?

You remain absurd.

If we Mirandized KSM instead of waterboarding that piece of shit, do you imagine he'd have shared the information he wished to withhold?

You, and retards like you, point to AN example of a guy speaking (allegedly) even though he got some Miranda warnings (allegedly) and YOU (and retards like you) conclude that giving Mirandas doesn't impact anything.

You are truly an ignoramus.

 

[Liability]

Give the Conservatives a break LWC

They are just upset they didn't get to use electric clamps on his genitals

No need to lie (even though that is the first recourse of dishonest uber libtards like you).

ONE example of a douche bag terrorist talking (even allegedly with Mirandas) doesn't make the case that insisting that they all get Mirandas is good or rational policy.

Idiots like you persist in the mistake made by the Clinton Admin. You foolishly and dangerously equate acts of terrorism with mere criminal justice issues.

As I noted, you guys are retarded.

 

[Vast LWC]

You remain absurd.

If we Mirandized KSM instead of waterboarding that piece of shit, do you imagine he'd have shared the information he wished to withhold?

You, and retards like you, point to AN example of a guy speaking (allegedly) even though he got some Miranda warnings (allegedly) and YOU (and retards like you) conclude that giving Mirandas doesn't impact anything.

You are truly an ignoramus.

I have no idea if KSM would have given more or less information if he had received his miranda rights, and more importantly NEITHER DO YOU.

Do you have a background in interrogation? Have you worked for counter-intelligence?

The fact is that you, and others like you, are TALKING OUT YOUR COLLECTIVE ASSES, and guessing that your "gut feelings" are correct.

Here we have a case that specifically proves that we can in fact derive information from a suspect, with Miranda Rights included, and you come back with some bullshit theory about how something might not have happened.

Do you have any statistical data proving your assertion? Or are we just supposed to take yours and Dick Cheney's word for it? (like with WMDs)

 

[Vast LWC]

Give the Conservatives a break LWC

They are just upset they didn't get to use electric clamps on his genitals

No need to lie (even though that is the first recourse of dishonest uber libtards like you).

ONE example of a douche bag terrorist talking (even allegedly with Mirandas) doesn't make the case that insisting that they all get Mirandas is good or rational policy.

Idiots like you persist in the mistake made by the Clinton Admin. You foolishly and dangerously equate acts of terrorism with mere criminal justice issues.

As I noted, you guys are retarded.

Yet, YOU make the case that Mirandizing terrorist suspects undermines the information gathering process WITHOUT ANY EXAMPLE AT ALL.

And then you call other people "douchebags" for making a generalization based an actual example.

ROFL.

 

[Liability]

Give the Conservatives a break LWC

They are just upset they didn't get to use electric clamps on his genitals

No need to lie (even though that is the first recourse of dishonest uber libtards like you).

ONE example of a douche bag terrorist talking (even allegedly with Mirandas) doesn't make the case that insisting that they all get Mirandas is good or rational policy.

Idiots like you persist in the mistake made by the Clinton Admin. You foolishly and dangerously equate acts of terrorism with mere criminal justice issues.

As I noted, you guys are retarded.

Yet, YOU make the case that Mirandizing terrorist suspects undermines the information gathering process WITHOUT ANY EXAMPLE AT ALL.

And then you call other people "douchebags" for making a generalization based an actual example.

ROFL.

You are indeed retarded.

Why would you need an "example" to realize that telling a captured al qaeda piece of shit that he has a "Right" to "remain silent" is actually pretty fucking stupid? If we need intel RIGHT THE FUCK NOW but tell him that he has a "right" not to even chat with us, then we are denying ourselves the opportunity to GET the information from him.

It is too fucking obvious to require any examples, you blithering moron.

Only a fucking retard liberoidal ass-monkey would even assume that an example is required.

 

[Liability]

You remain absurd.

If we Mirandized KSM instead of waterboarding that piece of shit, do you imagine he'd have shared the information he wished to withhold?

You, and retards like you, point to AN example of a guy speaking (allegedly) even though he got some Miranda warnings (allegedly) and YOU (and retards like you) conclude that giving Mirandas doesn't impact anything.

You are truly an ignoramus.

I have no idea if KSM would have given more or less information if he had received his miranda rights, and more importantly NEITHER DO YOU.

Do you have a background in interrogation? Have you worked for counter-intelligence?

The fact is that you, and others like you, are TALKING OUT YOUR COLLECTIVE ASSES, and guessing that your "gut feelings" are correct.

Here we have a case that specifically proves that we can in fact derive information from a suspect, with Miranda Rights included, and you come back with some bullshit theory about how something might not have happened.

Do you have any statistical data proving your assertion? Or are we just supposed to take yours and Dick Cheney's word for it? (like with WMDs)

You jackass liberoidals need to get on the same page.

You cannot validly complain about how much we waterboarded KSM on the one hand but then deny that it was waterboarding that got him to speak, you fucking retard.

 

[Vast LWC]

You remain absurd.

If we Mirandized KSM instead of waterboarding that piece of shit, do you imagine he'd have shared the information he wished to withhold?

You, and retards like you, point to AN example of a guy speaking (allegedly) even though he got some Miranda warnings (allegedly) and YOU (and retards like you) conclude that giving Mirandas doesn't impact anything.

You are truly an ignoramus.

I have no idea if KSM would have given more or less information if he had received his miranda rights, and more importantly NEITHER DO YOU.

Do you have a background in interrogation? Have you worked for counter-intelligence?

The fact is that you, and others like you, are TALKING OUT YOUR COLLECTIVE ASSES, and guessing that your "gut feelings" are correct.

Here we have a case that specifically proves that we can in fact derive information from a suspect, with Miranda Rights included, and you come back with some bullshit theory about how something might not have happened.

Do you have any statistical data proving your assertion? Or are we just supposed to take yours and Dick Cheney's word for it? (like with WMDs)

You jackass liberoidals need to get on the same page.

You cannot validly complain about how much we waterboarded KSM on the one hand but then deny that it was waterboarding that got him to speak, you fucking retard.

So basically your answer is:

"No, I do not have any background in interrogation, or counter-intelligence, and yes, despite testimony to the contrary, by people who DO have such a background, I will continue to talk about my ass, about a subject I know nothing about."

 

[Vast LWC]

You are indeed retarded.

Why would you need an "example" to realize that telling a captured al qaeda piece of shit that he has a "Right" to "remain silent" is actually pretty fucking stupid? If we need intel RIGHT THE FUCK NOW but tell him that he has a "right" not to even chat with us, then we are denying ourselves the opportunity to GET the information from him.

It is too fucking obvious to require any examples, you blithering moron.

Only a fucking retard liberoidal ass-monkey would even assume that an example is required.

Because once they have a lawyer, they can have some reasonable assurance that if they try to make a plea deal they have a reasonable chance to see some benefit from turning on their fellow terrorists.

That is how we do it here in the US. And it works.

Hell, if you don't want to believe the officials on the subject, don't you watch any prime time crime dramas?

 

[Liability]

I have no idea if KSM would have given more or less information if he had received his miranda rights, and more importantly NEITHER DO YOU.

Do you have a background in interrogation? Have you worked for counter-intelligence?

The fact is that you, and others like you, are TALKING OUT YOUR COLLECTIVE ASSES, and guessing that your "gut feelings" are correct.

Here we have a case that specifically proves that we can in fact derive information from a suspect, with Miranda Rights included, and you come back with some bullshit theory about how something might not have happened.

Do you have any statistical data proving your assertion? Or are we just supposed to take yours and Dick Cheney's word for it? (like with WMDs)

You jackass liberoidals need to get on the same page.

You cannot validly complain about how much we waterboarded KSM on the one hand but then deny that it was waterboarding that got him to speak, you fucking retard.

So basically your answer is:

"No, I do not have any background in interrogation, or counter-intelligence, and yes, despite testimony to the contrary, by people who DO have such a background, I will continue to talk about my ass, about a subject I know nothing about."

SO, absolutely, you are married to deflection.

You "think" demanding "proof" in the form of classified material to which none of us have any expectation of access is reasonable?

You are a transparent fraud.

Identifying the problem does not require examples that it has already happened, anyway.

If we capture a terrorist and at the same time have reason to believe that his actions were just a smaller part of a larger immediate IMMINENT threat of a terrorist "spectacular," it is beyond irrational to TELL HIM that he has some fucking fictional "right" to remain silent. No he doesn't. He has the "right" to tell us every scrap of information we can extract from his filthy carcass in exchange for the avoidance of MASSIVE pain and suffering and injury. He has no right to remain silent and shouldn't be seen as having any such right. This is NOT a criminal justice issue, you imbecile. It was and it remains a fight for survival in a very nasty war.

For once, stop being a tool. Think of the brutal pain, the suffering, the fear, the horror and of the brutal death of the people caught in the Twin Towers on 9/11/2001 before the burning towers collapsed. Are you actually suggesting that if we had caught some fucker BEFORE that attack and had reason to believe that SOME kind of attack was about to happen, we would have been better served by giving the captured terrorist "Miranda" warnings at that time?

Or the Times Square attempted car-bomber. What if we had information that his actions were just one component of a wide array of planned attacks on our civilian population centers? We should have pulled him aside and intoned "You have the right to remain silent? Do you understand?" Fuck that. That's literally retarded. He may have chosen to speak. But if he had instead chosen to keep silent for his distorted view of the greater glory of Islam, Mohamed and Allah, do you think WE should have encouraged him to keep his yap shut?

Fucking nuts. That's what that is. Crazy.

 

[Vast LWC]

See, now you're not thinking about this logically, that's your problem.

Personally, I don't really give two shits about terrorists. What I DO care about is getting information from them.

We have 2 ways of going about that. The "carrot" and the "stick".

With the "carrot" method, a suspect must have some assurance that he will actually get what he is promised. Whether that be what type of prison environment they are assigned to, whether they will be allowed to come out of solitary confinement EVER, etc, etc.

The "carrot" method has a long proven record of WORKING. That is my point. Not that I care one little bit about the rights of terrorists.

On the other hand, we have the "Stick" method: No lawyer, and plenty of torture (or whatever you want to call Waterboarding this week).

With the "stick" approach, we have experts in counter-intelligence all over the place telling us that it doesn't work...

...But because some people get some sort of visceral satisfaction from it, we continue to use it.

So again, you and the Cheney crew need to start thinking with your head, not your "guts".

 

[Vast LWC]

And perhaps you are right that the "stick" method will get a suspect talking...

But according to intelligence specialists in the field, they will be "talking" about false information and things that do not actually exist.

Which is WORSE than them not talking at all, because you devote resources chasing "wild geese".

And yes, before you ask, my time in the military was in fact spent in military intelligence, but I do not claim any special knowledge in this particular arena because of it, as I was in surveillance, not counter-intel.