Possible BOMB found in van in NY's Time Square

[CMike]

Do you realize the represcussion to this country if the two previous terrorist attacks didn't fail due to mechanical failure?

1) The christimas day bombing of a plane over Detroit

2) A big boom in Times Square

 

[Coyote]

I disagree Obama is a fool. Pres. Bush adapted to the war against Al Qaida. He changed it from a law enforcement issue into a war. Obama changed it back again, and that's why we are encoutering so many problems.

What specific policies changed and how are they causing problems?

IMO - I think it's more appropriate to define it as an international law enforcement issue because it's no more a "war" then the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty". Terrorism is a tactic, not a country. Afghanistan is a war. Iraq is a war. Attempting to define them within the context of an overall "global war on terror" has not served us well.

Interrogators need to focus on getting information from this needle dick in order to stop other terrorist attacks, and not have Obama imposed miranda rights as an obstacle to this aim.

How do you know they aren't? Apparently, with the last would-be terrorist, they were able to get boatloads of information despite "Miranda Rights". This particular guy is an American citizen as such he is subject to our laws and constitutional rights. Once you start deciding that some suspects have no rights, you start down a very slippery slope.

 

[Father Time]

The point is coyote that the terrorists have and as you said continually change the rules. In the mean time we do not change with them without a years worth of hearings and a year of fighting amongst ourselves in congress. By the time we react they are ready to change again. Look at the PAT ACT, We are still fighting against it, we have charged our own special forces because a terrorist got a fat lip. We as a people are fighting the changes we need to make.

In all seriousness...don't you think that is happening? What ever you might think about Obama politically - he isn't stupid, he isn't a fool, and he does not want to see another 9/11 attack. Very few - if any - of the Bush Administration safeguards have been dismantled, and I am quite sure there is a lot going on behind the scenes nationally and internationally to try to keep up with changing threats and most of that never makes it into the media or the congressional arena.

You say: "We as a people are fighting the changes we need to make." Yes, we are - but that is a good thing. These kind of changes should not be made without a fight, without a careful waying of consequences. We should not rest easy and accept them as permanent or accept them without question for the sake of "security".

You also say: "...we have charged our own special forces because a terrorist got a fat lip."

Is that necessarily a bad thing? However you feel about the prisoner personally, the law should still be respected and discipline is still important otherwise what is the difference between us and them? Aside from that, part of the charge - I think the more damning part of the charge - was the cover up, wasn't it?

I disagree Obama is a fool. Pres. Bush adapted to the war against Al Qaida. He changed it from a law enforcement issue into a war. Obama changed it back again, and that's why we are encoutering so many problems.

Interrogators need to focus on getting information from this needle dick in order to stop other terrorist attacks, and not have Obama imposed miranda rightsas an obstacle to this aim.

Miranda rights have been mandates since 1966. The man is a US citizen and he's entitled to rights like the rest of us.

 

[Liability]

We could debate the legitimacy of Miranda rights being mandatory for people charged with crimes all day and come up with some interesting notions.

But what is now under discussion is very different.

Any person charged with a crime, whether a citizen, an alien or an illegal alien, is entitled to receive his Miranda warnings after arrest and before questioning. So, it's not citizenship that determines whether one is entitled to Miranda warnings. It's being charged with a "crime."

The mistake this Administration continues to make is to handle these terrorist efforts AS "crimes." They aren't. They are acts of war.

I believe that for all practical purposes it therefore makes NO sense to worry about whether this Times Square suspect is a citizen in trying to determine if he is entitled to the Miranda warnings.

What does make sense is to treat him as an enemy combatant, Deny him his Miranda "rights" on the basis that he's not being detained for criminal prosecution and therefore who gives a damn if what he says can be used against him in a Court of law. We aren't trying to get the damn information as EVIDENCE. We are trying to get military intel to avert the prospect that another terror strike is planned and now may need to be foiled.

How retarded are we to tell a captured (scumbag illegal) warrior that he has a "right" to "remain silent" when we are damn well going to be questioning him to get crucial military/national security information? Bullshit. He has no such fucking right. He has the right to tell us whatever we demand he give up. And we have a corresponding need to get that information.

 

[blu]

We could debate the legitimacy of Miranda rights being mandatory for people charged with crimes all day and come up with some interesting notions.

But what is now under discussion is very different.

Any person charged with a crime, whether a citizen, an alien or an illegal alien, is entitled to receive his Miranda warnings after arrest and before questioning. So, it's not citizenship that determines whether one is entitled to Miranda warnings. It's being charged with a "crime."

The mistake this Administration continues to make is to handle these terrorist efforts AS "crimes." They aren't. They are acts of war.

I believe that for all practical purposes it therefore makes NO sense to worry about whether this Times Square suspect is a citizen in trying to determine if he is entitled to the Miranda warnings.

What does make sense is to treat him as an enemy combatant, Deny him his Miranda "rights" on the basis that he's not being detained for criminal prosecution and therefore who gives a damn if what he says can be used against him in a Court of law. We aren't trying to get the damn information as EVIDENCE. We are trying to get military intel to avert the prospect that another terror strike is planned and now may need to be foiled.

How retarded are we to tell a captured (scumbag illegal) warrior that he has a "right" to "remain silent" when we are damn well going to be questioning him to get crucial military/national security information? Bullshit. He has no such fucking right. He has the right to tell us whatever we demand he give up. And we have a corresponding need to get that information.

the only question that matters:

is he a citizen?

emotional appeals and the rest have no place in the discussion

 

[Liability]

We could debate the legitimacy of Miranda rights being mandatory for people charged with crimes all day and come up with some interesting notions.

But what is now under discussion is very different.

Any person charged with a crime, whether a citizen, an alien or an illegal alien, is entitled to receive his Miranda warnings after arrest and before questioning. So, it's not citizenship that determines whether one is entitled to Miranda warnings. It's being charged with a "crime."

The mistake this Administration continues to make is to handle these terrorist efforts AS "crimes." They aren't. They are acts of war.

I believe that for all practical purposes it therefore makes NO sense to worry about whether this Times Square suspect is a citizen in trying to determine if he is entitled to the Miranda warnings.

What does make sense is to treat him as an enemy combatant, Deny him his Miranda "rights" on the basis that he's not being detained for criminal prosecution and therefore who gives a damn if what he says can be used against him in a Court of law. We aren't trying to get the damn information as EVIDENCE. We are trying to get military intel to avert the prospect that another terror strike is planned and now may need to be foiled.

How retarded are we to tell a captured (scumbag illegal) warrior that he has a "right" to "remain silent" when we are damn well going to be questioning him to get crucial military/national security information? Bullshit. He has no such fucking right. He has the right to tell us whatever we demand he give up. And we have a corresponding need to get that information.

the only question that matters:

is he a citizen?

emotional appeals and the rest have no place in the discussion

Wrong.

Your "only question that matters" DOESN'T matter.

The question that does matter is whether this is the kind of investigation that concerns itself with the criminal justice system.

Even in certain CRIMINAL cases there are situations (exigencies) that relieves law enforcement of any obligation to read Miranda warnings or to obtain warrants which would otherwise be obligatory.

If we can recognize that much IN the context of an actual criminal law enforcement matter, then we SHOULD be able to recognize it in situations outside the realm of criminal law enforcement.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Yes. I use "he" generaly.



In case you didn't get it, that's a given. They are constantly changing the rules. It's a bit like evolution. But until something happens, or you get sufficient intelligence to act on, there isn't a whole lot you can do. Unless your Obama of course. Then you should have prevented it.

The point is coyote that the terrorists have and as you said continually change the rules. In the mean time we do not change with them without a years worth of hearings and a year of fighting amongst ourselves in congress. By the time we react they are ready to change again. Look at the PAT ACT, We are still fighting against it, we have charged our own special forces because a terrorist got a fat lip. We as a people are fighting the changes we need to make.

In all seriousness...don't you think that is happening? What ever you might think about Obama politically - he isn't stupid, he isn't a fool, and he does not want to see another 9/11 attack. Very few - if any - of the Bush Administration safeguards have been dismantled, and I am quite sure there is a lot going on behind the scenes nationally and internationally to try to keep up with changing threats and most of that never makes it into the media or the congressional arena.

You say: "We as a people are fighting the changes we need to make." Yes, we are - but that is a good thing. These kind of changes should not be made without a fight, without a careful waying of consequences. We should not rest easy and accept them as permanent or accept them without question for the sake of "security".

You also say: "...we have charged our own special forces because a terrorist got a fat lip."

Is that necessarily a bad thing? However you feel about the prisoner personally, the law should still be respected and discipline is still important otherwise what is the difference between us and them? Aside from that, part of the charge - I think the more damning part of the charge - was the cover up, wasn't it?

We aren't too far apart on this. I have never claimed that Obama dismantled any safeguards. But I don't believe we are as tough as we should be with these characters either. Fact is we have got to find a way to defeat terrorism. I believe that we will have to break a few eggs to do it. As far as the SEALs, I can only say that I hope the third one is also found not guilty.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I disagree Obama is a fool. Pres. Bush adapted to the war against Al Qaida. He changed it from a law enforcement issue into a war. Obama changed it back again, and that's why we are encoutering so many problems.

What specific policies changed and how are they causing problems?

IMO - I think it's more appropriate to define it as an international law enforcement issue because it's no more a "war" then the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty". Terrorism is a tactic, not a country. Afghanistan is a war. Iraq is a war. Attempting to define them within the context of an overall "global war on terror" has not served us well.

Interrogators need to focus on getting information from this needle dick in order to stop other terrorist attacks, and not have Obama imposed miranda rights as an obstacle to this aim.

How do you know they aren't? Apparently, with the last would-be terrorist, they were able to get boatloads of information despite "Miranda Rights". This particular guy is an American citizen as such he is subject to our laws and constitutional rights. Once you start deciding that some suspects have no rights, you start down a very slippery slope.

No this should not be a police action. Bush was right about that, we have to beat this with the Military. 3 times while stationed in Europe I came within minutes of being caught up in a terrorist bombing. I was lucky, but each time we reacted to the method they had used. we prepared for the next time. Bush took us out of the waiting game. For this reason he will be remembered in history.

I don't know if we need to change the Miranda warnings for terrorism, but it is a thought. I do know we have to be tough on this issue and right now we simply aren't tough enough.

 

[CMike]

We could debate the legitimacy of Miranda rights being mandatory for people charged with crimes all day and come up with some interesting notions.

But what is now under discussion is very different.

Any person charged with a crime, whether a citizen, an alien or an illegal alien, is entitled to receive his Miranda warnings after arrest and before questioning. So, it's not citizenship that determines whether one is entitled to Miranda warnings. It's being charged with a "crime."

The mistake this Administration continues to make is to handle these terrorist efforts AS "crimes." They aren't. They are acts of war.

I believe that for all practical purposes it therefore makes NO sense to worry about whether this Times Square suspect is a citizen in trying to determine if he is entitled to the Miranda warnings.

What does make sense is to treat him as an enemy combatant, Deny him his Miranda "rights" on the basis that he's not being detained for criminal prosecution and therefore who gives a damn if what he says can be used against him in a Court of law. We aren't trying to get the damn information as EVIDENCE. We are trying to get military intel to avert the prospect that another terror strike is planned and now may need to be foiled.

How retarded are we to tell a captured (scumbag illegal) warrior that he has a "right" to "remain silent" when we are damn well going to be questioning him to get crucial military/national security information? Bullshit. He has no such fucking right. He has the right to tell us whatever we demand he give up. And we have a corresponding need to get that information.

That's what Obama and his minions don't get.

Miranda rights are designed to protect someone in order to for them to get the fairest trial possible by giving them the right to shut up.

We are in an intelligence war. We need the information these terrorists have now.

And the Obama Administration keeps making the same mistake.

By sheer luck America averted a big terrorist attack because the panty bomber's bomb didn't go off. What does Obama do with this terrorist? He gives him a lawyer and within 45 minutes he shuts up.

Perhaps the information he could have provided would have stopped this terrorist attack.

Then by sheer luck America averted another big terrorist attack because the Time Square bomber's bomb didn't go off. What does Obama do with this terrorist? The same mistake. He gives him a lawyer and the right for him to clam up.

Obama has beeen playing a dangerous game of russian roulette with American lives.

The undies bomber click it didn't go off

The times square bomber click it didn't go off.

Pretty soon BOOM it will go off.

 

[nraforlife]

Still no reason to see this incident as different from the bogus xmas crotch bomber.

Guess what - like I said, it was a piece of muslim filth:

NYC bomb suspect nabbed aboard Dubai-bound plane - Yahoo! News

NYC bomb suspect nabbed aboard Dubai-bound plane

AP – FBI search a house where Faisal Shahzad lived in Bridgeport, Conn., Tuesday, May 4, 2010.

By TOM HAYS and COLLEEN LONG, Associated Press Writers – 28 mins ago
NEW YORK – A U.S. citizen who had recently returned from a five-month trip to his native Pakistan, where he had a wife, was arrested at a New York airport on charges that he drove a bomb-laden SUV meant to cause a fireball in Times Square, federal authorities said.

Faisal Shahzad was on board a Dubai-bound flight at Kennedy Airport when FBI agents and New York Police Department detectives took him into custody late Monday, law enforcement officials said. One official said he claimed to have acted alone.
U.S. authorities "will not rest until we have brought everyone responsible to justice," Attorney Eric Holder said early Tuesday, suggesting additional suspects are being sought.
Shahzad, 30, is a naturalized U.S. citizen and had recently returned from a five-month trip to Pakistan, where he had a wife, according to law enforcement officials who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation into the failed car bombing.

------------------------------------------------------------

Ooooh, big suprise there, the same old BS, endless mindless muslim violence - can we just eliminate islam from this planet already?

so was the xmas crotch bomber. It is in your face obvious that the guy is a patsy for a black op just like the xmas crotch bomber.

 

[Liability]

Still no reason to see this incident as different from the bogus xmas crotch bomber.

Guess what - like I said, it was a piece of muslim filth:

NYC bomb suspect nabbed aboard Dubai-bound plane - Yahoo! News

NYC bomb suspect nabbed aboard Dubai-bound plane

AP – FBI search a house where Faisal Shahzad lived in Bridgeport, Conn., Tuesday, May 4, 2010.

By TOM HAYS and COLLEEN LONG, Associated Press Writers – 28 mins ago
NEW YORK – A U.S. citizen who had recently returned from a five-month trip to his native Pakistan, where he had a wife, was arrested at a New York airport on charges that he drove a bomb-laden SUV meant to cause a fireball in Times Square, federal authorities said.

Faisal Shahzad was on board a Dubai-bound flight at Kennedy Airport when FBI agents and New York Police Department detectives took him into custody late Monday, law enforcement officials said. One official said he claimed to have acted alone.
U.S. authorities "will not rest until we have brought everyone responsible to justice," Attorney Eric Holder said early Tuesday, suggesting additional suspects are being sought.
Shahzad, 30, is a naturalized U.S. citizen and had recently returned from a five-month trip to Pakistan, where he had a wife, according to law enforcement officials who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation into the failed car bombing.

------------------------------------------------------------

Ooooh, big suprise there, the same old BS, endless mindless muslim violence - can we just eliminate islam from this planet already?

so was the xmas crotch bomber. It is in your face obvious that the guy is a patsy for a black op just like the xmas crotch bomber.

It is not "obvious." It is not credible.

It isn't even sane.

You, sir or madame or whatever you may be somewhere in between, are simply and certifiably nuts.

 

[Kalam]

Ooooh, big suprise there, the same old BS, endless mindless muslim violence - can we just eliminate islam from this planet already?

Nobody said you can't try.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2c5N-EgV4I]YouTube - Bi Jihadina Nasheed[/ame]

 

[CMike]

Still no reason to see this incident as different from the bogus xmas crotch bomber.

Guess what - like I said, it was a piece of muslim filth:

NYC bomb suspect nabbed aboard Dubai-bound plane - Yahoo! News

NYC bomb suspect nabbed aboard Dubai-bound plane

AP – FBI search a house where Faisal Shahzad lived in Bridgeport, Conn., Tuesday, May 4, 2010.

By TOM HAYS and COLLEEN LONG, Associated Press Writers – 28 mins ago
NEW YORK – A U.S. citizen who had recently returned from a five-month trip to his native Pakistan, where he had a wife, was arrested at a New York airport on charges that he drove a bomb-laden SUV meant to cause a fireball in Times Square, federal authorities said.

Faisal Shahzad was on board a Dubai-bound flight at Kennedy Airport when FBI agents and New York Police Department detectives took him into custody late Monday, law enforcement officials said. One official said he claimed to have acted alone.
U.S. authorities "will not rest until we have brought everyone responsible to justice," Attorney Eric Holder said early Tuesday, suggesting additional suspects are being sought.
Shahzad, 30, is a naturalized U.S. citizen and had recently returned from a five-month trip to Pakistan, where he had a wife, according to law enforcement officials who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation into the failed car bombing.

------------------------------------------------------------

Ooooh, big suprise there, the same old BS, endless mindless muslim violence - can we just eliminate islam from this planet already?

so was the xmas crotch bomber. It is in your face obvious that the guy is a patsy for a black op just like the xmas crotch bomber.

 

[DavidS]

If this car bomb had gone off, we could've been looking at a death toll in the thousands, if not tens of thousands. By some miracle of G-d, that bomb did NOT go off. We should all be saying thank you to G-d for this. Who knows what the ramifcations could've been, nationwide and worldwide from this? We are truly blessed.

No way, not with this car bomb.

A car bomb maybe, but not this one. This one was built by a retard who has seen too many Michael Bay movies.

As a matter of fact, I think it's even money that it wouldn't have harmed anyone. Not trying to downplay it, it's a very serious situation and the reaction by police was entirely justified. But think about it. It's gasoline and propane...

Gas starts burning...people go "oh shit" and get pretty far away....and then the propane goes off...AFTER the people back off. Don't know what powder was in the cylinders that were found, but if it was gunpowder I'm not sure that the blast from that alone would have gotten 10 feet outside the vehicle itself (don't know the size of the cylinders found yet, or if they were actually adequately sealed and capped to facilitate an explosion).

The people who would have been in the most danger would be the good Samaritans who would try to douse the car fire from the gasoline when the propane went off. Or FDNY when they arrived and the same thing happened.

Given the crudeness and stupidity of the device, I'm still going with uneducated McVeigh or Unabomber type (those two had some brains, this person doesn't), or a wacko student.

If Faisal Shahzad had built his bomb the way he planned to, thousands would have died as the force from his exploding SUV turned nearby vehicles into a spray of razor-sharp projectiles and surrounding buildings' windows into a rainfall of glass shards. Others would have been trampled to death running away in the ensuing panic. That's what the FBI found in a simulation carried out secretly in Pennsylvania last month, the New York Post reports.

Read more: Times Square Bomb Would Have Killed Thousands: FBI - 'Biggest thing since 9/11'—if Shahzad had built it right
​

 

[chanel]

I pointed out earlier in this thread, even "dumb" terrorists must be taken seriously. Who says that in order to be a homocide/suicide bomber, you have to have an advanced degree in chemistry? Downplaying their intelligence/skills, or lack thereof, could be a very dangerous mistake.

 

[Liability]

Ooooh, big suprise there, the same old BS, endless mindless muslim violence - can we just eliminate islam from this planet already?

Nobody said you can't try.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2c5N-EgV4I]YouTube - Bi Jihadina Nasheed[/ame]

It wouldn't be as hard as the Islamist propaganda scumbags seem to think. The "recipe," however, would be unseemly. First, detonate one jdam bomb on top of Mecca. Blow it to dust. The notion is to knock out some of that old "Pillar" malarkey. Then, of course, the Muslim peoples would all have to be locked in place to prevent their filthy religiously bigoted notions from being spread, like the disease it is, any further.

But although the Islamists seemingly embrace death, the western world of civilized people do not. So eradicating Muslims is too much like the thinking of Nazis or of the Islamists themselves. No. It would be better to limit the eradication to just those who take up arms against us.

We must always be vigilant to never become as depraved as the enemy we oppose.