Turns out reading Miranda rights works fine after all

[The T]

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

I heard it just a minute ago on the NEWS on this very thing.

 

[Vast LWC]

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'...

None of it is "Proven" to be true.

In order to do that, you would have to produce a case where a suspect did not supply information based on the fact that they were provided with Miranda Rights.

Or prove that, under torture, suspects provide reliable information on a regular basis.

The first piece of evidence would be nigh on impossible to obtain, the second does not exist, and in fact has been thoroughly denied and disproven by just about all the experts in the field.

Thus "unsupportable".

 

[Vast LWC]

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

Because he is folding under political pressure.

 

[Intense]

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.

Funny that Miranda Rights are an issue for you guy's, yet cop's misleading and out right lying to suspects in interrogation is not. It doesn't bother you that it is legal for an officer of the state to misrepresent, distort, out right lie???

 

[The T]

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'...

None of it is "Proven" to be true.

In order to do that, you would have to produce a case where a suspect did not supply information based on the fact that they were provided with Miranda Rights.

Or prove that, under torture, suspects provide reliable information on a regular basis.

The first piece of evidence would be nigh on impossible to obtain, the second does not exist, and in fact has been thoroughly denied and disproven by just about all the experts in the field.

Thus "unsupportable".

Was he tortured? I think you're really getting off your own topic. The man WAIVED his 'Miranda rights'. I just heard it a few moments ago.

You are making your own thread pointless past silly. You are torpedoing yourself. Heads up.

 

[Vast LWC]

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

Alrighty, so they did do some questioning before Mirandizing the suspect, great.

Now let's go to the non right-wing sites and see what they have to say:

Faisal Shahzad Was Read Miranda Rights After Initial Questioning - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Alleged terrorist Faisal Shahzad was initially questioned by authorities under the public safety exception to the Miranda rule, Deputy Director of the FBI John S. Pistole said today at a press conference...

...Pistole said that joint terrorism task force agents and officers from the New York Police Department interviewed Shahzad last night and early this morning before reading him his Miranda rights and that he was "cooperative" and provided "valuable intelligence and evidence."

"He was Mirandized later and continued to cooperate and provide valuable information," he added.

Would you look at that? It made no difference if he was Mirandized or not!

 

[Vast LWC]

Funny that Miranda Rights are an issue for you guy's, yet cop's misleading and out right lying to suspects in interrogation is not. It doesn't bother you that it is legal for an officer of the state to misrepresent, distort, out right lie???

Not at all actually.

 

[Vast LWC]

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'...

None of it is "Proven" to be true.

In order to do that, you would have to produce a case where a suspect did not supply information based on the fact that they were provided with Miranda Rights.

Or prove that, under torture, suspects provide reliable information on a regular basis.

The first piece of evidence would be nigh on impossible to obtain, the second does not exist, and in fact has been thoroughly denied and disproven by just about all the experts in the field.

Thus "unsupportable".

Was he tortured? I think you're really getting off your own topic. The man WAIVED his 'Miranda rights'. I just heard it a few moments ago.

You are making your own thread pointless past silly. You are torpedoing yourself. Heads up.

No sir, you were referring to my comment concerning Liability's posts, in which he had included torture being effective as one of his points.

 

[Avatar4321]

Funny that Miranda Rights are an issue for you guy's, yet cop's misleading and out right lying to suspects in interrogation is not. It doesn't bother you that it is legal for an officer of the state to misrepresent, distort, out right lie???

Bothers me. I think corruption needs to be routed out of our public servants.

 

[Vast LWC]

Funny that Miranda Rights are an issue for you guy's, yet cop's misleading and out right lying to suspects in interrogation is not. It doesn't bother you that it is legal for an officer of the state to misrepresent, distort, out right lie???

Oh, and it's not the Miranda Rights themselves that are an issue to me, it's two things really:

1. Information Gathering - if we are to reasonably assure a suspect that the interrogators are telling the truth about plea deals, etc, it must be with the assurance of Due Process (a lawyer, etc.). Thus we can offer the "carrot" in order to obtain information.

And

2. Due Process - which is not in my mind necessarily reflected by Miranda Rights, but as that is the only means we have right now of assuring due process, we will have to use them.

If we were to change Miranda Rights in a way that still reasonably insured Due Process, I would not object. Got a good alternative?

 

[hjmick]

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

Alrighty, so they did do some questioning before Mirandizing the suspect, great.

Now let's go to the non right-wing sites and see what they have to say:

Faisal Shahzad Was Read Miranda Rights After Initial Questioning - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Alleged terrorist Faisal Shahzad was initially questioned by authorities under the public safety exception to the Miranda rule, Deputy Director of the FBI John S. Pistole said today at a press conference...

...Pistole said that joint terrorism task force agents and officers from the New York Police Department interviewed Shahzad last night and early this morning before reading him his Miranda rights and that he was "cooperative" and provided "valuable intelligence and evidence."

"He was Mirandized later and continued to cooperate and provide valuable information," he added.

Would you look at that? It made no difference if he was Mirandized or not!

I have no problem with him being Mirandized, before or after questioning. I am with Napolitano and, <gulp>, Glenn Beck on this. As a citizen, Shahzad is entitled to all the protections of the Constitution.

I was also aware that he continued to sing after being read his rights, probably should have mentioned that. My bad... The situation makes me wonder, though. If he had been read his rights prior to the initial interrogation, would he have talked? Did he continue talking after being read his rights because he figured, what the hell? I've already been spilling my guts, why stop now?

 

[The T]

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

Alrighty, so they did do some questioning before Mirandizing the suspect, great.

Now let's go to the non right-wing sites and see what they have to say:

Faisal Shahzad Was Read Miranda Rights After Initial Questioning - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Alleged terrorist Faisal Shahzad was initially questioned by authorities under the public safety exception to the Miranda rule, Deputy Director of the FBI John S. Pistole said today at a press conference...

...Pistole said that joint terrorism task force agents and officers from the New York Police Department interviewed Shahzad last night and early this morning before reading him his Miranda rights and that he was "cooperative" and provided "valuable intelligence and evidence."

"He was Mirandized later and continued to cooperate and provide valuable information," he added.

Would you look at that? It made no difference if he was Mirandized or not!

I have no problem with him being Mirandized, before or after questioning. I am with Napolitano and, <gulp>, Glenn Beck on this. As a citizen, Shahzad is entitled to all the protections of the Constitution.

I was also aware that he continued to sing after being read his rights, probably should have mentioned that. My bad... The situation makes me wonder, though. If he had been read his rights prior to the initial interrogation, would he have talked? Did he continue talking after being read his rights because he figured, what the hell? I've already been spilling my guts, why stop now?

Yep.

 

[The T]

None of it is "Proven" to be true.

In order to do that, you would have to produce a case where a suspect did not supply information based on the fact that they were provided with Miranda Rights.

Or prove that, under torture, suspects provide reliable information on a regular basis.

The first piece of evidence would be nigh on impossible to obtain, the second does not exist, and in fact has been thoroughly denied and disproven by just about all the experts in the field.

Thus "unsupportable".

Was he tortured? I think you're really getting off your own topic. The man WAIVED his 'Miranda rights'. I just heard it a few moments ago.

You are making your own thread pointless past silly. You are torpedoing yourself. Heads up.

No sir, you were referring to my comment concerning Liability's posts, in which he had included torture being effective as one of his points.

And? Is Liability wrong? Nope.

 

[Vast LWC]

I have no problem with him being Mirandized, before or after questioning. I am with Napolitano and, <gulp>, Glenn Beck on this. As a citizen, Shahzad is entitled to all the protections of the Constitution.

I was also aware that he continued to sing after being read his rights, probably should have mentioned that. My bad... The situation makes me wonder, though. If he had been read his rights prior to the initial interrogation, would he have talked? Did he continue talking after being read his rights because he figured, what the hell? I've already been spilling my guts, why stop now?

Well, that is a valid question, as we will never know what was going on in the suspect's mind.

But to tell you the truth, I will say this:

I am not completely adamant on this matter, I think there is room for a bit of compromise.

Let's say if a suspect is questioned for a short while without Mirandizing them, with the expectation that they will be given their rights within, say, 24 hours, that does not bother me that much. But only in situations of national security or extremely high threat.

How does that sound?

 

[The T]

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.

Funny that Miranda Rights are an issue for you guy's, yet cop's misleading and out right lying to suspects in interrogation is not. It doesn't bother you that it is legal for an officer of the state to misrepresent, distort, out right lie???

COPS lying certainly bothers me. There are rogues out there. By and large? Not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Because he is folding under political pressure.

From whom?

Miranda warning do work, for suspects. They do not help the government, and your OP implying that they do is ridiculous. Holder is actually smart enough to realize this, and wants to expand the federal law enforcement's power to not take a suspect before a judge and have his rights read to him. The feds are required, by law, to bring anyone arrested before a judge in a very short period of time. States can get away with waiting hours, and even days, to do this. This gives them a flexibility to question a suspect if they are willing to not use information from questioning him in court. That is the essence of the public safety exception.

Holders real problem is that the public safety exception is solely up to the discretion of the courts. That means that Congress cannot really tinker with it. They can tinker with the time the FBI has to bring someone before a judge if they want, but not with Miranda and the exceptions to it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Google

And he pretty much claimed that he worked alone the entire time. Anyone claiming that he cooperated during his interrogation, or that he is cooperating now, needs to learn the difference between cooperation and trying to mislead investigators. Just because he is answering questions does not mean he is telling the truth.

 

[Vast LWC]

From whom?

You're kidding me right?

Miranda warning do work, for suspects. They do not help the government, and your OP implying that they do is ridiculous. Holder is actually smart enough to realize this, and wants to expand the federal law enforcement's power to not take a suspect before a judge and have his rights read to him. The feds are required, by law, to bring anyone arrested before a judge in a very short period of time. States can get away with waiting hours, and even days, to do this. This gives them a flexibility to question a suspect if they are willing to not use information from questioning him in court. That is the essence of the public safety exception.

Holders real problem is that the public safety exception is solely up to the discretion of the courts. That means that Congress cannot really tinker with it. They can tinker with the time the FBI has to bring someone before a judge if they want, but not with Miranda and the exceptions to it.

I did not imply anywhere in my OP that Miranda rights "help the Government".

My posts that may even come close to that simply stated that a suspect that is assured of his rights and is provided an attorney, according to his Miranda Rights will be more assured that the authorities will play straight with him if a plea deal or similar situation is offered.

 

[hjmick]

I have no problem with him being Mirandized, before or after questioning. I am with Napolitano and, <gulp>, Glenn Beck on this. As a citizen, Shahzad is entitled to all the protections of the Constitution.

I was also aware that he continued to sing after being read his rights, probably should have mentioned that. My bad... The situation makes me wonder, though. If he had been read his rights prior to the initial interrogation, would he have talked? Did he continue talking after being read his rights because he figured, what the hell? I've already been spilling my guts, why stop now?

Well, that is a valid question, as we will never know what was going on in the suspect's mind.

But to tell you the truth, I will say this:

I am not completely adamant on this matter, I think there is room for a bit of compromise.

Let's say if a suspect is questioned for a short while without Mirandizing them, with the expectation that they will be given their rights within, say, 24 hours, that does not bother me that much. But only in situations of national security or extremely high threat.

How does that sound?

I'm okay with that, though I'm not sure 24 hours is necessary. Now, I'm no lawyer, but my understanding of the public safety exception in Miranda is that it designed to attempt to get information that could potentially prevent an immediate threat. My guess, if they don't have that information after 12 hours, we're screwed.

On the upside, the public safety exception allows for the interrogation and evidence gathered prior to reading a suspect his/her rights to be admissible in court.

 

[Vast LWC]

Google

And he pretty much claimed that he worked alone the entire time. Anyone claiming that he cooperated during his interrogation, or that he is cooperating now, needs to learn the difference between cooperation and trying to mislead investigators. Just because he is answering questions does not mean he is telling the truth.

Perhaps you missed the quote from the FBI Director on the scene:

Faisal Shahzad Was Read Miranda Rights After Initial Questioning - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Alleged terrorist Faisal Shahzad was initially questioned by authorities under the public safety exception to the Miranda rule, Deputy Director of the FBI John S. Pistole said today at a press conference...

...Pistole said that joint terrorism task force agents and officers from the New York Police Department interviewed Shahzad last night and early this morning before reading him his Miranda rights and that he was "cooperative" and provided "valuable intelligence and evidence."

"He was Mirandized later and continued to cooperate and provide valuable information," he added.