How the Times Square terrorists was treated by the terrorists rights focused Obama Ad

[zeitgeist2012]

This is twice now that America averted a major terrorist attack within it's own country by pure luck, and no thanks to Obama.

Instead of Obama using whatever method possible to get information from these terrorists to avert yet more terrorist attacks within the US, he has turned the interrogators into pussies instead of bullies.

Alas, George W. Bush had bad luck, the worst terrorist attack in our nations history was not averted and on his watch 3,000 innocent victims and many first responders died.

At least he learned from it and protecting America for 7 years prior to Obama's reign.

Since Obama we have now had 4 Al Qaida terrorist attacks within the US.

here is progressive strategy for ya:

Progressives true colors:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROPBWbfkgx8&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - "King Obama" by Lenin and the Castros[/ame]

Beware Mrs. John Kerry

 

[EriktheRed]

Why does the OP hate America?

 

[zeitgeist2012]

Why does the OP hate America?

That's all good except for the soldiers who fight for our Country and who are still loyal to their foreign country of birth. However, no one wants to transplant large sections of third world populations into their Country especially when it is already over burdened and on the verge of political and economic collapse! That is insane, and suicidal for any Country to even contemplate...

Here is a very lare collection of my statements and links that I have built up over time. I'm sure you will find it all interesting especially the name calling from the progressive liberals. Let me know if you find anything of interest?

zeitgeist2012's Blog

View topic - Get Involved...Join the Freedom Movement.... | The Seattle Times

Sign In to The 9.12 Project Network - The 9.12 Project Network

Join the cause of Freedom - MySanantonio.com Bulletin Board

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csO4PcDqitk&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - What They Aren't Telling You About Arizona's Immigration Law[/ame]

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yea and how bout that absurd and delusional Liberal Media spin that he was just a poor guy who was upset over being foreclosed on? Man,the Liberal Media is completely out of touch with reality at this point. Yea he was just a poor victim of "Evil America" rather than a brutal trained Islamic Terrorist. I swear i can't even watch Liberal Media outlets like CNN & NBC anymore. They have become so warped. All that being said,reading him his rights is required as he is a U.S. Citizen. I do not feel the same way about American Citizens caught fighting our troops on the battlefield. If this Administration is smart,they will go back and find that he lied on his Citizenship application therefore stripping him of his Citizenship. Unfortunately i'm not counting on this Administration to be smart on this one. It is what it is.

 

[chanel]

Not only won't they do that - and they will continue to invite them here. Maybe if we give them FREE housing, they won't try to blow us up.

Saying that citizens who become terrorists are at war with the U.S., lawmakers on Capitol Hill introduced a bill Thursday to let the government strip them of their citizenship - and stirred up a debate over what tools should be used to fight the war on terrorism.

Under a 1940 law, the State Department already can withdraw citizenship from those who join an enemy's armed forces, and the lawmakers said it's time to update the law by adding terrorism to the list of reasons, particularly because the threat of homegrown terrorism is increasing.

"Our enemies today are even more willing than the Nazis or fascists were to kill innocent civilian Americans here in our homeland," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent, who is leading the bipartisan push.

The lawmakers argued that those who engage in terrorism have shown an intent to renounce their citizenship - the standard set in a 1980 Supreme Court ruling that rejected an effort to void the 1940 law. The court said Congress can decide there are some actions people take that prove they intended to renounce their citizenship.

But both administration officials and congressional leaders, however, seemed uncertain about going down that path.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, and Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said they worried about constitutional implications.
And White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said stripping citizenship wasn't an effective solution, while a State Department spokesman said they were worried about taking action based on suspicion rather than on a criminal conviction.

Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said all sides should be worried by how much power Mr. Lieberman's proposal turns over to the State Department. That's compounded, he said, by the government's history of mistakes on the no-fly list and with some of those detained at the U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Newsmax - Lieberman: Strip Terrorists of Citizenship

I suspect the terrorist lovin ACLU will fight this all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

[EriktheRed]

Never mind.

 

[zeitgeist2012]

Not only won't they do that - and they will continue to invite them here. Maybe if we give them FREE housing, they won't try to blow us up.

Saying that citizens who become terrorists are at war with the U.S., lawmakers on Capitol Hill introduced a bill Thursday to let the government strip them of their citizenship - and stirred up a debate over what tools should be used to fight the war on terrorism.

Under a 1940 law, the State Department already can withdraw citizenship from those who join an enemy's armed forces, and the lawmakers said it's time to update the law by adding terrorism to the list of reasons, particularly because the threat of homegrown terrorism is increasing.

"Our enemies today are even more willing than the Nazis or fascists were to kill innocent civilian Americans here in our homeland," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent, who is leading the bipartisan push.

The lawmakers argued that those who engage in terrorism have shown an intent to renounce their citizenship - the standard set in a 1980 Supreme Court ruling that rejected an effort to void the 1940 law. The court said Congress can decide there are some actions people take that prove they intended to renounce their citizenship.

But both administration officials and congressional leaders, however, seemed uncertain about going down that path.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, and Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said they worried about constitutional implications.
And White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said stripping citizenship wasn't an effective solution, while a State Department spokesman said they were worried about taking action based on suspicion rather than on a criminal conviction.

Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said all sides should be worried by how much power Mr. Lieberman's proposal turns over to the State Department. That's compounded, he said, by the government's history of mistakes on the no-fly list and with some of those detained at the U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Newsmax - Lieberman: Strip Terrorists of Citizenship

I suspect the terrorist lovin ACLU will fight this all the way to the Supreme Court.

Further proof of the subversion of America by Purto Rico, the global Elite and crooked progressive Republicrat politicians:

Using Bilingualism to Subvert America

Puerto Rico Democracy Act ? Legislation Biased in Favor of Statehood | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Sotomayor's Senate Questionnaire Released | 44 | washingtonpost.com

The Truth Seeker - How Communists Subverted America

http://web.gc.cuny.edu/iradac/conference/documents/Af-lat Dhouti.pdf

The Social Contract - Funding 'Demographic Warfare'

The Two Malcontents 2010 April

Ethnic politics pushes and passes Puerto Rican Statehood Locust blog

A shooting in Congress wounds state lawmaker - Congress News

 

[EriktheRed]

Not that I agree with it, but has anyone read this:

The Obama Administration is applying an old exception to the Miranda rule in a new way in order to interrogate terrorism suspects before reading them their rights, several experts tell TPMmuckraker, finding what one law professor calls a "middle ground" between those who want suspects put through the criminal justice system and those who believe they should be classified as "enemy combatants."

Federal agents questioned both Faisal Shahzad, the man accused of planting a makeshift bomb in Times Square, and Umar Abdulmutallab, the failed Christmas Day bomber, under the so-called public safety exception to the Miranda rule for substantial periods before informing the men of their right to remain silent, and to an attorney.

Information gleaned during questioning under the public safety exception -- in which police "ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety," according to the 1984 Supreme Court case that recognized the exception -- is admissible at trial.

"It looks like to me they're trying to find this middle ground between saying the Constitution applies with full force and the Constitution doesn't apply," says Sam Kamin, a professor of criminal law and procedure at Sturm College of Law in Denver who has written about terrorism interrogations. "It seems to be a deliberate strategy."

Asked about the use of the public safety exception, a federal law enforcement official tells TPMmuckraker: "There has been no change in the long-standing law on Miranda or in the FBI's current policy governing use of Miranda, which was issued during the prior Administration."

None of several experts on Miranda interviewed by TPMmuckraker knew of publicly reported use of the public safety exception in a terrorism case during the Bush years, a fact supported by a Nexis search. And they say the length of the pre-Miranda interrogations in the two recent cases -- 50 minutes and a few hours respectively -- also appears to break new ground.

The expanded use of the exception isn't likely to quell GOP criticism of the Obama Administration over Miranda; it has continued apace despite the fact that Shahzad kept talking after he was read his rights. But the new tack could raise the hackles of civil libertarians worried about the erosion of Miranda.

That last sentence should make a few cons on here happy, dontcha think?


Experts: Obama Admin Pioneering Robust Use Of Miranda Exception In Terrorism Cases (VIDEO) | TPMMuckraker

 

[LibocalypseNow]

. If this Administration is smart,they will go back and find that he lied on his Citizenship application therefore stripping him of his Citizenship. Unfortunately i'm not counting on this Administration to be smart on this one. It is what it is.

So if this adimn. were smart, they'd find a way to lie so they could circumvent the law and deny a citizen his citizenship?

I said that i agreed with them reading him his rights. He is currently a U.S. Citizen. However,it would not be a lie to go back and possibly find that he lied on his Citizenship application. If they can't prove that he lied on his application than so be it. If they can prove he lied they can then strip him of his Citizenship. Stripping him of his U.S. Citizenship would change the game quite a bit. It's not Checkers,it's Chess.

 

[chanel]

Wasn't there a thread bashing McCain for bringing up this exception? Gee who woulda thunk he and Obama would be on the same page?

 

[RadiomanATL]

. If this Administration is smart,they will go back and find that he lied on his Citizenship application therefore stripping him of his Citizenship. Unfortunately i'm not counting on this Administration to be smart on this one. It is what it is.

So if this adimn. were smart, they'd find a way to lie so they could circumvent the law and deny a citizen his citizenship?

Ummm, he DID lie on his citizenship application. No fabrication necessary on the part of any administration or member of the government.


http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/n-400.pdf

Question 9 and 10.

 

[chanel]

Amazing how much support these monsters get from the left. You'd think there'd be one thing we Americans could agree on. Guess not.

 

[EriktheRed]

. If this Administration is smart,they will go back and find that he lied on his Citizenship application therefore stripping him of his Citizenship. Unfortunately i'm not counting on this Administration to be smart on this one. It is what it is.

So if this adimn. were smart, they'd find a way to lie so they could circumvent the law and deny a citizen his citizenship?

Ummm, he DID lie on his citizenship application. No fabrication necessary on the part of any administration or member of the government.


http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/n-400.pdf

Question 9 and 10.

Whoops, my bad. Retracted.

 

[RadiomanATL]

So if this adimn. were smart, they'd find a way to lie so they could circumvent the law and deny a citizen his citizenship?

Ummm, he DID lie on his citizenship application. No fabrication necessary on the part of any administration or member of the government.


http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/n-400.pdf

Question 9 and 10.

Whoops, my bad. Retracted.

No problem

But it does raise a valid point. Why don't we retract his citizenship? Not quite sure what the advantages are of it, but it probably lets the government be a bit more flexible in prosecuting him.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

. If this Administration is smart,they will go back and find that he lied on his Citizenship application therefore stripping him of his Citizenship. Unfortunately i'm not counting on this Administration to be smart on this one. It is what it is.

So if this adimn. were smart, they'd find a way to lie so they could circumvent the law and deny a citizen his citizenship?

Ummm, he DID lie on his citizenship application. No fabrication necessary on the part of any administration or member of the government.


http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/n-400.pdf

Question 9 and 10.

If this is true he could be stripped of his U.S. Citizenship any day now. This would change things significantly. I guess we'll see if this Administration pursues this.

 

[Ame®icano]

He is an American citizen.

******* A right he was given his Miranda warnings.


******* loons.

He is an illegal combatant, and has no rights.

He is an American citizen. Thus abso-*******-lutely needs to be Mirandized. Unless you want the whole case against him thrown out on a technicality.

It reminds me that back then Ayers walk away on technicality... just to become respected member of (Obama) society.

 

[Care4all]

So where do Libs draw the line, when is it no longer an ordinary criminal act?

If he tried to detonate a dirty bomb, that count?

If he tried and failed to release small pox in the NY City subway, would that still be a criminal act?

Where do Libs draw the line, if at all?

Where exactly in the Constitution does it say that acts of terrorism make people lose their rights as accused?

It's not in the Constitution but apparently there is a terrorism law passed in 2006 that says they do not have to. Padilla was not mirandized.

I saw two lawyers on O'Reilly last night, and in this case they believe he was handled properly. It seems the govt. has a choice, and chose to have him interrogated by the FBI instead of shipping him off to the military. And the lawyers agreed that the interrogation was appropriate and VALUABLE.

These situations may need to be handled on a case-by-case basis. And this guy talked before and after he was lawyered up.

I am confident that the JTTF, the FBI, and the NYPD know what they are doing. Look at how fast they got him and the evidence they already have. I trust them.

We all should be grateful that that bomb did not go off. Now they need to focus on preventing the next one.

padilla was not mirandized, he was held by the military for three years before his case caqme to the civil court....during this time he was extensively interogated....

and guess what?

He didn't say a word.

Not one tidbit of information came from all the interogations.

You do NOT KNOW if he had been mirandized, if the situation would have been more hospitable to "talking" than with the intense interogations they gave him....

the guy they got now is singing like a song bird, btw! which is good, no?

 

[zeitgeist2012]

Not only won't they do that - and they will continue to invite them here. Maybe if we give them FREE housing, they won't try to blow us up.

Saying that citizens who become terrorists are at war with the U.S., lawmakers on Capitol Hill introduced a bill Thursday to let the government strip them of their citizenship - and stirred up a debate over what tools should be used to fight the war on terrorism.

Under a 1940 law, the State Department already can withdraw citizenship from those who join an enemy's armed forces, and the lawmakers said it's time to update the law by adding terrorism to the list of reasons, particularly because the threat of homegrown terrorism is increasing.

"Our enemies today are even more willing than the Nazis or fascists were to kill innocent civilian Americans here in our homeland," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent, who is leading the bipartisan push.

The lawmakers argued that those who engage in terrorism have shown an intent to renounce their citizenship - the standard set in a 1980 Supreme Court ruling that rejected an effort to void the 1940 law. The court said Congress can decide there are some actions people take that prove they intended to renounce their citizenship.

But both administration officials and congressional leaders, however, seemed uncertain about going down that path.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, and Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said they worried about constitutional implications.
And White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said stripping citizenship wasn't an effective solution, while a State Department spokesman said they were worried about taking action based on suspicion rather than on a criminal conviction.

Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said all sides should be worried by how much power Mr. Lieberman's proposal turns over to the State Department. That's compounded, he said, by the government's history of mistakes on the no-fly list and with some of those detained at the U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Newsmax - Lieberman: Strip Terrorists of Citizenship

I suspect the terrorist lovin ACLU will fight this all the way to the Supreme Court.

Police State Bills:

The McCain-Lieberman Police State Act | Fog City Journal

Police State legislation, S.3081 introduced by McCain and Scott Brown Conservative Libertarian Outpost

 

[Care4all]

He is an illegal combatant, and has no rights.

He is an American citizen. Thus abso-*******-lutely needs to be Mirandized. Unless you want the whole case against him thrown out on a technicality.

It reminds me that back then Ayers walk away on technicality... just to become respected member of (Obama) society.

what a crock of crap...Obama was a baby, a child when Ayers got off Americano....sheesh, you all are obamaramdrama deranged.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Where exactly in the Constitution does it say that acts of terrorism make people lose their rights as accused?

It's not in the Constitution but apparently there is a terrorism law passed in 2006 that says they do not have to. Padilla was not mirandized.

I saw two lawyers on O'Reilly last night, and in this case they believe he was handled properly. It seems the govt. has a choice, and chose to have him interrogated by the FBI instead of shipping him off to the military. And the lawyers agreed that the interrogation was appropriate and VALUABLE.

These situations may need to be handled on a case-by-case basis. And this guy talked before and after he was lawyered up.

I am confident that the JTTF, the FBI, and the NYPD know what they are doing. Look at how fast they got him and the evidence they already have. I trust them.

We all should be grateful that that bomb did not go off. Now they need to focus on preventing the next one.

padilla was not mirandized, he was held by the military for three years before his case caqme to the civil court....during this time he was extensively interogated....

and guess what?

He didn't say a word.

Not one tidbit of information came from all the interogations.

You do NOT KNOW if he had been mirandized, if the situation would have been more hospitable to "talking" than with the intense interogations they gave him....

the guy they got now is singing like a song bird, btw! which is good, no?

Don't be so quick to buy into their "He's singing like a song bird" routine. It's called Psy-Ops. They always say captured Terrorists are talking. They do this in every country. It's a Psy-Op tactic used to make Terror leadership nervous. If you notice,they never say the captured Terrorist is not talking. It's not Checkers,it's Chess.