Turns out reading Miranda rights works fine after all

[Liability]

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

A lecture about "thinking" from a tool like you who is incapable of coherent thinking is too funny. The next time you think will be the first time you think.

Personally, I don't really give two shits about terrorists.

But they care about you.

What I DO care about is getting information from them.

No you don't. You care about giving them "rights" to which they aren't even entitled in a context to which it does not pertain.

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

Wrong again, although those are two OF the numerous ways to extract information from them.

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".

Your incredibly naive and simplistic babble would be amusing if it wasn't all too likely that the morons presently infesting the American Government might not think along similarly retarded lines.

If you give ABDUL his Miranda rights, you fucking idiot, he may just take you up on them.

The last thing we want is for Abdul to think he has ANY option of refusing to give us the information we need.

Waterboarding isn't torture but even if it were I don't care. Torture is hideous and should be avoided where reasonably possible. But even so, we should do what we need to do to extract from these bastards whatever intel we need. And if that includes "torture," then so be it.

You, like many of your pussy ilk, dodged the question. Do you have ANY concept of what it felt like to be trapped inside the Twin Towers as they burned like a damn furnace a story or two below? I don't want to ever have any of our fellow citizens (or guests) subjected to that again, and most certainly not on the basis that we were too "refined" and too "civilized" to forcefully extract the information we needed when we could have gotten it.

 

[California Girl]

Of course, the reality is that we require the option of carrot and stick.

 

[Vast LWC]

A lecture about "thinking" from a tool like you who is incapable of coherent thinking is too funny. The next time you think will be the first time you think.

Coming from a moron who makes assumptions and spouts them in a thread like this without a shred of evidence, I'll feel free to ignore this bit of BS.

But they care about you.

No you don't. You care about giving them "rights" to which they aren't even entitled in a context to which it does not pertain.

Ah, I see, not only does your "gut" tell you what works in the world of interrogation...

but NOW it tells you what other people are "really" thinking!

That's some amazing "gut" you have there. ROFL.

Wrong again, although those are two OF the numerous ways to extract information from them.

These are general categories of information gathering that apply to this situation. I consider methods like using hallucinogens and deprivation techniques to be part of the "stick" category.

But that is a semantic argument. If you would like to introduce other categories into the conversation, feel free to list them, but it will not detract from my point.

Your incredibly naive and simplistic babble would be amusing if it wasn't all too likely that the morons presently infesting the American Government might not think along similarly retarded lines.

If you give ABDUL his Miranda rights, you fucking idiot, he may just take you up on them.

If that's so, then what makes you think he wouldn't do that anyway, or even worse, give false information that leads to wasting resources as mentioned in a prior post?

The last thing we want is for Abdul to think he has ANY option of refusing to give us the information we need.

"Abdul" always has the option to lie or to not talk.

Waterboarding isn't torture but even if it were I don't care. Torture is hideous and should be avoided where reasonably possible. But even so, we should do what we need to do to extract from these bastards whatever intel we need. And if that includes "torture," then so be it.

You, like many of your pussy ilk, dodged the question. Do you have ANY concept of what it felt like to be trapped inside the Twin Towers as they burned like a damn furnace a story or two below? I don't want to ever have any of our fellow citizens (or guests) subjected to that again, and most certainly not on the basis that we were too "refined" and too "civilized" to forcefully extract the information we needed when we could have gotten it.

Again, visceral satisfaction, and logical intelligence gathering do not mix.

I had friends who died in the towers. My girlfriend at the time worked in a building 5 blocks away and ran through the cloud of ash.

I personally was working 20 blocks away.

Do you really think that your anger over the incident is any greater than mine? Personally I'd like to literally slice some of these assholes apart with a butter knife.

That being said, there's effective and there's emotional. The two are rarely found together.

And I'd rather see every one of these assholes caught than see only one or two of them be tortured.

 

[hjmick]

Umm... LWC, buddy, you do know that Shahzad was interrogated before being Mirandized, right?

 

[Vast LWC]

Umm... LWC, buddy, you do know that Shahzad was interrogated before being Mirandized, right?

Link please?

And hell, if you all don't want to listen to me, perhaps you should listen to Glenn Beck, that bastion of the "Liberal Left":

We do not shred the Constitution when it's popular. We do the right thing... How is it that saying a citizen should have their rights read to them … is controversial?

Now, he and I may have different reasons for supporting Miranda Rights in this case, but the end result is the same.

 

[Liability]

A lecture about "thinking" from a tool like you who is incapable of coherent thinking is too funny. The next time you think will be the first time you think.

Coming from a moron who makes assumptions and spouts them in a thread like this without a shred of evidence, I'll feel free to ignore this bit of BS.

Again. You are demanding "proof" of things which (a) are not required to be proved (because you are deflecting for all you're worth, like the pussy you are) and (b) are unlikely to be publicly available. All irrelevant. The example is the very thing that demonstrates the invalidity of your proposition.

This explains why you duck it. I did, of course, correctly note that you are deflecting and that you are a pussy.

But they care about you.

No you don't.

Hey, retard. I said THEY care about you. THEY. Not me. You really are an imbecile.

You care about giving them "rights" to which they aren't even entitled in a context to which it does not pertain.

Ah, I see, not only does your "gut" tell you what works in the world of interrogation...

but NOW it tells you what other people are "really" thinking![/quote]

You seem perfectly willing to tell us what DOESN'T "work." Your rules do not apply only to others. You remain an obvious moron. In any event, I wasn't talking about "gut" or what "works" at that point. I was talking about the irrationality of telling them that they have a right to remain silent. How stupid can you possibly be? If you care about getting the information (as you previously claimed, you dishonest fucktard), you wouldn't tell them that they had some alleged "right" not to inform you of the very intel you need.

That's some amazing "gut" you have there. ROFL.

I said nothing about "gut" or "gut feeling," you dishonest twat.

These are general categories of information gathering that apply to this situation. I consider methods like using hallucinogens and deprivation techniques to be part of the "stick" category.

That's nice. Most people would say that it's neither carrot nor stick, imbecile.

But that is a semantic argument.

Then stop quibbling you waffling pussy.

If you would like to introduce other categories into the conversation, feel free to list them, but it will not detract from my point.

I didn't introduce any other categories. I merely denied your false dichotomy. What detracts from your pointless is your inherent lack of logic.

If that's so, then what makes you think he wouldn't do that anyway, or even worse, give false information that leads to wasting resources as mentioned in a prior post?

You need to make up your petty irrational liberoidally stupid mind, dickweed. Either you are opposed to "torture" on morality grounds or you are opposed to it because it doesn't work. If it works and you don't want to resort to it, then it's a moral objection. But if it's not a moral objection, then it must be because you believe it allegedly doesn't work.

You cannot establish that it "doesn't work." That's just a dishonest and baseless claim. OF COURSE a person being subjected to torture MIGHT VERY WELL lie his ass off to get the interrogators to stop hurting him. But that's just temporary. It is logically expected that lying will only earn him greater punishment, sooner or later he is predictably going to stop lying.

The last thing we want is for Abdul to think he has ANY option of refusing to give us the information we need.

"Abdul" always has the option to lie or to not talk.

No no, stupid. He has that option only at first. When he "learns" that it only garners him additional punishment, he can be taught to stop lying.

Waterboarding isn't torture but even if it were I don't care. Torture is hideous and should be avoided where reasonably possible. But even so, we should do what we need to do to extract from these bastards whatever intel we need. And if that includes "torture," then so be it.

You, like many of your pussy ilk, dodged the question. Do you have ANY concept of what it felt like to be trapped inside the Twin Towers as they burned like a damn furnace a story or two below? I don't want to ever have any of our fellow citizens (or guests) subjected to that again, and most certainly not on the basis that we were too "refined" and too "civilized" to forcefully extract the information we needed when we could have gotten it.

Again, visceral satisfaction, and logical intelligence gathering do not mix.

You keep making that empty and unsupported claim. Try backing it up. It's not a matter of faith, shithead. Prove it.

I had friends who died in the towers. My girlfriend at the time worked in a building 5 blocks away and ran through the cloud of ash.

I personally was working 20 blocks away.

Do you really think that your anger over the incident is any greater than mine? Personally I'd like to literally slice some of these assholes apart with a butter knife.

No, stupid. I just think you are gaining some psychological benefit from trying to be more pure and noble and civilized and refined than the stereotype you have in your pinhead about those who disagree with your ridiculous "analysis." My wife was damn fucking close to the towers too. I wasn't all that far away, frankly, albeit outside the immediate zone of danger. I heard the voices of firefighters and cops on their walkie-talkies at the moment the first tower went down. There are things I will never get out of my mind. It's not a QUESTION of who is angrier or more pure. It is a matter of responding accordingly. Not out of irrational anger, but out of a concern that it not be permitted to happen again (at least to the extent we can be proactive and prevent it).

That being said, there's effective and there's emotional. The two are rarely found together.

And it is irrational and ineffective to tell the person with the information we need NOW that he has a bullshit make-believe "right" to remain silent when he never ever had any such "right" and never should have even been assumed to HAVE any such "right." IF you TELL the fucker that he has a right not to talk, what the fuck is he GOING to talk for? It's ridiculous. Is there no way to get that through your incredibly thick skull?

And I'd rather see every one of these assholes caught than see only one or two of them be tortured.

I really enjoy when you end up with a transparently absurd weak lame-ass false dichotomy.

You are pointless.

 

[Vast LWC]

Oh, and here's what the Attorney General had to say about it:

Holder defended the reading of Miranda rights to Shahzad, adding that Shahzad waived his Miranda rights and decided to continue speaking with authorities.

“As we've seen in prior investigations, the giving of Miranda warnings has not deterred people from talking to us and Mr. Shahzad is in fact continuing to cooperate with us,” said Holder.

As well as:

“Shahzad has provided useful information and we will continue to pursue a number of leads as we gather intelligence relating to this attempted attack,” said Holder.

Epoch Times - Shahzad Interrogation Yielding 'Useful Information'

 

[Alpha1]

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?

Miranda rights in the Constitution ?

Where is that ? I want to read that part, I can't find it...

 

[Liability]

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?

Miranda rights in the Constitution ?

Where is that ? I want to read that part, I can't find it...

You must first find the right penumbra.

 

[Avatar4321]

Reading Miranda is a pointless requirement. The idea that if rights aren't read than somehow you can't exercise them and any statements should be thrown out is ridiculous.

Men and women should know their rights without the cops needing to tell them.

 

[Vast LWC]

Wow Liability, what a load of unsupportable crap.

Repeated meaningless invectives mixed with uneducated assumptions and attacks on my character.

How... typical.

When did I even state that I was "opposed to torture on morality grounds"?

Why do you continue to categorically state that torture will make a suspect stop lying, when all the intelligence experts in the field have emphatically stated the reverse?

And if you continue to make statements that are not based on fact in the face of expert testimony to the contrary, then one can only assume that you are getting it from the same place Cheney gets his information, from his "gut".

Of course you didn't use that phrase, I did to describe the foolish strategy you were using.

 

[The T]

Reading Miranda is a pointless requirement. The idea that if rights aren't read than somehow you can't exercise them and any statements should be thrown out is ridiculous.

Men and women should know their rights without the cops needing to tell them.

Every citizen should know. And I think a preresquite to get out of High School.

And to think a few decades ago? Students were given grades in such matters of 'Citizenship' for these things?

 

[BolshevikHunter]

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?

Miranda rights in the Constitution ?

Where is that ? I want to read that part, I can't find it...

I think maybe he was referring to some of the rights contained in The 5th Amendment. ~BH

 

[The T]

Wow Liability, what a load of unsupportable crap.

Repeated meaningless invectives mixed with uneducated assumptions and attacks on my character.

How... typical.

When did I even state that I was "opposed to torture on morality grounds"?

Why do you continue to categorically state that torture will make a suspect stop lying, when all the intelligence experts in the field have emphatically stated the reverse?

And if you continue to make statements that are not based on fact in the face of expert testimony to the contrary, then one can only assume that you are getting it from the same place Cheney gets his information, from his "gut".

Of course you didn't use that phrase, I did to describe the foolish strategy you were using.

What's "Unsupportable" of what he states? All has proven to be true, not perverted. And the perp was singing from the time they got him under the 'hot lights'...

 

[Vast LWC]

Miranda rights in the Constitution ?

Where is that ? I want to read that part, I can't find it...

See "Due Process" under Amendment 5.

Which the Supreme Court interpreted to mean the reading of Miranda Rights in the case Miranda v. Arizona in 1966.

 

[The T]

Of course, the reality is that we require the option of carrot and stick.

Indeed. Human Nature 101.

 

[hjmick]

Umm... LWC, buddy, you do know that Shahzad was interrogated before being Mirandized, right?

Link please?

And hell, if you all don't want to listen to me, perhaps you should listen to Glenn Beck, that bastion of the "Liberal Left":

We do not shred the Constitution when it's popular. We do the right thing... How is it that saying a citizen should have their rights read to them … is controversial?

Now, he and I may have different reasons for supporting Miranda Rights in this case, but the end result is the same.

At a press conference today, Attorney General Eric Holder said that Faisal Shahzad was questioned for a number of hours under the "public safety exception" before being Mirandized.


Google

 

[The T]

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.

Exactly. And WHY did he disappear for awhile to attend his terrorism classes?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

It couldn't possibly mean that the government is finally noticing something that was in front of their faces the entire time, could it. The fact is that there was a video posted, and it is relatively easy for police to track anyone who is not completely tech savvy, and even people who are savvy enough to mask their IP can be tracked eventually when the entire resources of the US intelligence community focuses on it. IF Mirinda warnings are so effective why is Holder, one of the twits you are crediting for smarts in this, now seeking to expand exceptions to it?

Attorney General Backs Miranda Limit for Terror Suspects - NYTimes.com

 

[Avatar4321]

Miranda rights in the Constitution ?

Where is that ? I want to read that part, I can't find it...

See "Due Process" under Amendment 5.

Which the Supreme Court interpreted to mean the reading of Miranda Rights in the case Miranda v. Arizona in 1966.

Have you ever read Miranda v. Arizona?

Are you honestly telling me you think the Constitution requires officers read them them their Rights before arresting them? Why on earth doesn't every American know his or her rights?

The dissent in Miranda is correct. Reading them is completely pointless.