Turns out reading Miranda rights works fine after all

[The T]

Lying cops? Don't feel bad about it, the courts have ruled that they are justified if they lie because only bad people are hurt. that makes them right. (Or at least justified.)

You're joking, right? Cite me one case where a court has ruled that it is OK for cops to lie. ONE case.

HA! This coming from a DIPSHIT that makes a boneheaded statement such as the following:
Terrorists are criminals - not "enemy combatants."
Yeah Right Georgie. Get lost you poseur loser.

 

[frazzledgear]

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?

You are talking about apples and oranges on this one -but my goodness, what a fine example of the muddle that passes for "higher mental activity" in a liberal! I hardly know where to start -but let's start with the obvious that it was a matter of LUCK that people were not murdered as this guy hoped. The fact they were not is NOT the result of a damn thing the FBI or police did whatsoever. So this back slapping crap about what would have been an investigation into the mass murder of Americans were it not for a matter of LUCK -seems highly inappropriate. This guy just proved AGAIN that we cannot prevent 100% of all attacks because it was only LUCK that prevented the mass murder of hundreds of Americans in the last two attempts!

The investigative work was NOT done by the police in case you really thought they were running the show with this. The FBI did the actual investigative work since this was a matter of homeland security and wasn't just a local criminal matter. The FBI doesn't have one investigative protocol for staying inside the Constitutional requirements and another one for when they want to go outside of it. This is how an investigation is carried out AFTER THE FACT -period. That investigation would have been the same if there had been hundreds dead -as this guy intended. They use the clues they find and go where it leads them. NOT the same thing as taking proactive measures that would intercept this guy BEFORE he left a car bomb in Times Square! This was not a proactive investigation but one occurring after the fact, that would have looked no different whether there had been hundreds killed or not. Therefore at NO TIME was there ever going to be a question about going "outside" the Constitution whatsoever. Once its a done deed, the FBI has all tools at its disposal to follow all clues to try and find the guy.

In NO WAY is an after the fact investigation related to what people like YOU don't like or want -and that is for them to do a PROACTIVE investigation -BEFORE the fact in order to head it off entirely even before he had a chance at mass murder by leaving a car bomb in Times Square -because you insist it is THAT cannot be done without violating the Constitution. Which you seem to think was intended to give terrorist thugs a greater "right" to plot against the nation in private even when calling up their known terrorist buddies who are on foreign soil - than Americans have a right to their life. So I'm missing the leap into space your mind took on this one. After the fact is how it is usually done. People get killed by the terrorist and THEN they try to find the guy. AFTER people are dead. So your comments seem to suggest you believe the lack of dead this time was somehow due to investigative BRILLIANCE -when in fact it was entirely due to SHEER LUCK. This was never a proactive investigation to find this guy before he left the bomb, so the "outside" the Constitution stuff was never going to occur in the first place! That means it has zero bearing on ANY of the things you think are "outside" the Constitution that would detect this guy and his plot BEFORE he attempted to carry it out. So your whole post is a bunch of HOOEY.

It means if the underwear bomber for example, knew this guy and knew the details of his plot -you would insist this foreign terrorist engaged in his war against our country and even after attempting to commit mass murder of Americans as part of his war - be Mirandized. Even if it meant he refused to let us in on this plot and hundreds of Americans ended up dead as a result -because a liberal will insist this guy's "right" to hear a Miranda warning which is NOT in the Constitution in the first place -is at all times greater than the right of Americans to their very lives.

Must be a real load off your mind and that of every other liberal whacko who spent so much time just FRETTING themselves sick about whether that poor, misunderstood would-be-mass murdering terrorist thug got a Miranda warning! So now we all know - all it takes is the "magic" of a Miranda warning for all terrorists to get caught but only AFTER they try to commit mass murder -can't you just smell all that love in the air now?

Except that sure doesn't explain what made AG Eric Holder suddenly change his mind and decide terrorists do NOT need to be Mirandized right off the bat after all. Your belief in the power of the Miranda warning and that all terrorists would all be just as glad to talk the ears off anyone willing to listen -is dangerously stupid. And apparently even the incredibly dense Holder finally saw the light on that one. There are two types of intelligence gathering -one for the purpose of providing for national security as in gathering information that might be useful in preventing an attack. The other is for the purpose of trying to convict someone in a courtroom. Our Courts have always distinguished between intelligence gathered to protect national security and intelligence gathered for the purpose of trying to convict someone because they are NOT one and the same and the requirements for gathering each kind is DIFFERENT. Please try to wrap your brain around this one. ONLY the second kind requires a Miranda warning! That means if someone is not given their Miranda warning, even if they gave up all the details of an ongoing plot and all the names of those involved, that guy cannot have any part of what he revealed about THAT plot used against him in a court of law. It does not EVER mean we cannot use that information to head off that attack and save lives though. THAT is the difference between intelligence gathered for national security purposes and intelligence gathered to try and convict someone in a courtroom. Again, ONLY the latter requires a Miranda warning, not the former. So if they believe someone has information about other ongoing plots if he is not Mirandized, it ONLY means they cannot use any information he gave about it to try and convict him of a crime. THAT has never disappeared here when discussing whether terrorists should or should not be Mirandized. If they believe the guy has information about ongoing plots they do NOT have to Mirandize him unless they intend to use that information to try and convict him in court. It doesn't mean they can't convict him using information they got elsewhere, they just cannot use any of the information he may have given before being Mirandized. So if being Mirandized will increase the odds of someone clamming up AND they believe they already have sufficient evidence to convict the guy, they do NOT have to Mirandize him in order to ask about possible plots and the people involved that are unrelated to the charges he faces.

The ONLY thing proved by these last two terrorists who failed to carry out their mass murder is that it is just a matter of time before it happens again -and how dangerously STUPID it would be to rely on our LUCK to hold much longer before seeing hundreds more dead Americans. But was it does NOT prove is that the FBI somehow got better at carrying out their investigation to find the mass murdering terrorist thug after he has killed hundreds. It has nothing to do with an after the fact investigation. But we can all be rest assured, once the mass murder has happened AGAIN, that the FBI sure knows how to run an investigation and might even catch the mass murdering terrorist - after the fact. I'm sure that will be a wonderful comfort to the families of the dead. What is truly appalling is that sure seems to be a real comfort to YOU and actually preferable to taking a proactive stance and investigation to intercept the guy before he even attempts his mass murdering act at all.

 

[Liability]

Lying cops? Don't feel bad about it, the courts have ruled that they are justified if they lie because only bad people are hurt. that makes them right. (Or at least justified.)

You're joking, right? Cite me one case where a court has ruled that it is OK for cops to lie. ONE case.

You look ever more silly when you make such arguments, GC.

Of COURSE a police officer is allowed to lie to a suspect.

Officer deems suspect a likely killer. He comes across suspect, but feels that he (the cop) does not have probable cause yet for an arrest. Still, he really wants to question the suspect. so he pretends (i.e., he lies his ass off) to the suspect about some fictional crime he needs information about. He gets the stupid bastard talking. In the process, too much escapes the dimwit's mouth and he implicates himself as having been present at the scene of the murder at the time of he murder. Suddenly, the officer has probable cause to arrest the idiot.

Idiot's lawyer tries to get the statement suppressed saying, "the defendant got no Miranda warnings." The DA replies, "of course not. The Defendant was not under arrest!" The defense lawyer says, "Sure, but that's only because the cop TRICKED my client and LIED to him!" And the Court says, "Oh. Well, in that case, the statement is in. Because the law is clear. Cops may deceive suspects into talking provided the suspect has not been arrested."

The case of People v. Sullivan is illustrative.

In Sullivan the court held that,

It is well settled that the use of deception and trickery by the police "need not result in involuntariness without some showing that the deception was so fundamentally unfair as to deny due process" (People v. Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1, 11, 427 N.Y.S.2d 944, 405 N.E.2d 188; People v. Hassell, 180 A.D.2d 819, 820, 580 N.Y.S.2d 773; People v. Jackson, 140 A.D.2d 458, 528 N.Y.S.2d 158; People v. Burnett, 99 A.D.2d 786, 472 N.Y.S.2d 37). Even though there was some measure of guile employed by the police in this case, the ruse did not render the defendant's statement involuntary (see, People v. Tarsia, supra, at 11, 427 N.Y.S.2d 944, 405 N.E.2d 188; People v. Hassell, supra; People v. Madison, 135 A.D.2d 655, 522 N.Y.S.2d 230, affd. 73 N.Y.2d 810, 537 N.Y.S.2d 111, 534 N.E.2d 28).

Sullivan, 638 N.Y.S.2d 116, 224 A.D.2d 460 (2 Dept., 1996).

And it is indeed VERY well settled. In short Georgie, you are once again simply and flatly wrong.

 

[George Costanza]

Your belief in the power of the Miranda warning and that all terrorists would all be just as glad to talk the ears off anyone willing to listen -is dangerously stupid.

Is it? What is the basis of your opinion in this regard?

I deal with serious, felony cases on a daily basis. In the vast majority of these cases, the defendant was Mirandized, waived his rights and spilled his guts to the police. I would estimate that perhaps one out of ten cases involves a defendant invoking, i.e., refusing to talk to the police. In the other nine cases, they talk - believe me, they talk.

Why do so many defendants talk to the police after being told they have a right to remain silent and anything they say can and will be used against them? There are as many reasons for this as there are tricks skilled police interrogators use to get people to talk. Probably the main reason is, they think they have something to gain by doing so. And if they don't think that, the police lie to them and tell them they have something to gain or, more accurately, that they won't be hurt so much if they come clean. Implied promises of leniency which are never fulfilled, are the main weapon of the police interrogator.

"Look. I know how these things go. One thing leads to another. Suddenly you have to defend yourself. You hit him in self defense, he falls, hits his head and is killed. Now if THAT's the way it happened, that will mean the difference between the death penalty and maybe three years in state prison for involuntary manslaughter or perhaps even an acquittal based on self defense. Is that the way it went down?"

Or - "Look, I think you had better talk to us. We have your prints on the gun (a lie)."

As a criminal defense attorney, I only wish that your opinion here about the effectiveness of the Miranda warning was correct. Sadly, it is not.

 

[George Costanza]

Lying cops? Don't feel bad about it, the courts have ruled that they are justified if they lie because only bad people are hurt. that makes them right. (Or at least justified.)

You're joking, right? Cite me one case where a court has ruled that it is OK for cops to lie. ONE case.

You look ever more silly when you make such arguments, GC.

Of COURSE a police officer is allowed to lie to a suspect.

Officer deems suspect a likely killer. He comes across suspect, but feels that he (the cop) does not have probable cause yet for an arrest. Still, he really wants to question the suspect. so he pretends (i.e., he lies his ass off) to the suspect about some fictional crime he needs information about. He gets the stupid bastard talking. In the process, too much escapes the dimwit's mouth and he implicates himself as having been present at the scene of the murder at the time of he murder. Suddenly, the officer has probable cause to arrest the idiot.

Idiot's lawyer tries to get the statement suppressed saying, "the defendant got no Miranda warnings." The DA replies, "of course not. The Defendant was not under arrest!" The defense lawyer says, "Sure, but that's only because the cop TRICKED my client and LIED to him!" And the Court says, "Oh. Well, in that case, the statement is in. Because the law is clear. Cops may deceive suspects into talking provided the suspect has not been arrested."

The case of People v. Sullivan is illustrative.

In Sullivan the court held that,

It is well settled that the use of deception and trickery by the police "need not result in involuntariness without some showing that the deception was so fundamentally unfair as to deny due process" (People v. Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1, 11, 427 N.Y.S.2d 944, 405 N.E.2d 188; People v. Hassell, 180 A.D.2d 819, 820, 580 N.Y.S.2d 773; People v. Jackson, 140 A.D.2d 458, 528 N.Y.S.2d 158; People v. Burnett, 99 A.D.2d 786, 472 N.Y.S.2d 37). Even though there was some measure of guile employed by the police in this case, the ruse did not render the defendant's statement involuntary (see, People v. Tarsia, supra, at 11, 427 N.Y.S.2d 944, 405 N.E.2d 188; People v. Hassell, supra; People v. Madison, 135 A.D.2d 655, 522 N.Y.S.2d 230, affd. 73 N.Y.2d 810, 537 N.Y.S.2d 111, 534 N.E.2d 28).

Sullivan, 638 N.Y.S.2d 116, 224 A.D.2d 460 (2 Dept., 1996).

And it is indeed VERY well settled. In short Georgie, you are once again simply and flatly wrong.

Ooops. I missed the context of the post. I thought it was talking about officers lying on the stand. Yes, of course, the courts have sustained cops lying to suspects in order to get a confession.

It does open a bit of a door for the defense at trial, however, enabling the defense to put before the jury the fact that this same officer who is now trying to convince them, under oath, that the defendant is guilty, is a documented liar when it suits his purpose in trying to get a confession or admission.

 

[Liability]

You're joking, right? Cite me one case where a court has ruled that it is OK for cops to lie. ONE case.

You look ever more silly when you make such arguments, GC.

Of COURSE a police officer is allowed to lie to a suspect.

Officer deems suspect a likely killer. He comes across suspect, but feels that he (the cop) does not have probable cause yet for an arrest. Still, he really wants to question the suspect. so he pretends (i.e., he lies his ass off) to the suspect about some fictional crime he needs information about. He gets the stupid bastard talking. In the process, too much escapes the dimwit's mouth and he implicates himself as having been present at the scene of the murder at the time of he murder. Suddenly, the officer has probable cause to arrest the idiot.

Idiot's lawyer tries to get the statement suppressed saying, "the defendant got no Miranda warnings." The DA replies, "of course not. The Defendant was not under arrest!" The defense lawyer says, "Sure, but that's only because the cop TRICKED my client and LIED to him!" And the Court says, "Oh. Well, in that case, the statement is in. Because the law is clear. Cops may deceive suspects into talking provided the suspect has not been arrested."

The case of People v. Sullivan is illustrative.

In Sullivan the court held that,

It is well settled that the use of deception and trickery by the police "need not result in involuntariness without some showing that the deception was so fundamentally unfair as to deny due process" (People v. Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1, 11, 427 N.Y.S.2d 944, 405 N.E.2d 188; People v. Hassell, 180 A.D.2d 819, 820, 580 N.Y.S.2d 773; People v. Jackson, 140 A.D.2d 458, 528 N.Y.S.2d 158; People v. Burnett, 99 A.D.2d 786, 472 N.Y.S.2d 37). Even though there was some measure of guile employed by the police in this case, the ruse did not render the defendant's statement involuntary (see, People v. Tarsia, supra, at 11, 427 N.Y.S.2d 944, 405 N.E.2d 188; People v. Hassell, supra; People v. Madison, 135 A.D.2d 655, 522 N.Y.S.2d 230, affd. 73 N.Y.2d 810, 537 N.Y.S.2d 111, 534 N.E.2d 28).

Sullivan, 638 N.Y.S.2d 116, 224 A.D.2d 460 (2 Dept., 1996).

And it is indeed VERY well settled. In short Georgie, you are once again simply and flatly wrong.

Ooops. I missed the context of the post. I thought it was talking about officers lying on the stand. Yes, of course, the courts have sustained cops lying to suspects in order to get a confession.

It does open a bit of a door for the defense at trial, however, enabling the defense to put before the jury the fact that this same officer who is now trying to convince them, under oath, that the defendant is guilty, is a documented liar when it suits his purpose in trying to get a confession or admission.

Well then we don't actually disagree. OF COURSE a cop is not allowed to lie on the stand. As you know, it still does sometimes happen. But no Court would authorize a conviction to stand if it was aware of perjury from the cop that had ANY bearing (or even likely bearing) on a determination of guilt by a jury.

And I also agree with you that it might be useful to expose that the cop had engaged in deception. It is not a huge "reach" to argue to a jury, "Just as the officer actively deceived my client, so too his testimony cannot be relied upon by you since you KNOW he is willing to engage in deception!"

 

[George Costanza]

Idiot's lawyer tries to get the statement suppressed saying, "the defendant got no Miranda warnings." The DA replies, "of course not. The Defendant was not under arrest!" The defense lawyer says, "Sure, but that's only because the cop TRICKED my client and LIED to him!" And the Court says, "Oh. Well, in that case, the statement is in. Because the law is clear. Cops may deceive suspects into talking provided the suspect has not been arrested."

This is an interesting statement.

If it is a pre-arrest consensual encounter, police may deceive suspects into making admissions or confessions without any type of Miranda warning whatsoever - because it is a consensual encounter and the suspect is neither detained or arrested.

Following arrest (or detention) police may NOT use deception in order to get a Miranda waiver but (following arrest), once a valid Miranda waiver has been obtained, they MAY use deception to obtain admissions or a confession.

Your statement implies that once a defendant has been arrested, the police may not use trickery. I don't think you meant to say that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Lying cops? Don't feel bad about it, the courts have ruled that they are justified if they lie because only bad people are hurt. that makes them right. (Or at least justified.)

You're joking, right? Cite me one case where a court has ruled that it is OK for cops to lie. ONE case.

Are you serious? Apparently cops can even steal your car in order to get evidence against you. Any halfway competent lawyer would be able to tell you that the last person you should ever believe is a cop if he is investigating you. I will admit I was a bit flippant about my phrasing, but cops lie every day.

Appeals Court Rules Cops Can Steal Cars and Lie to Victims To Conduct a Warrantless Search | Threat Level | Wired.com

Further reading of your posts leads me to realize that you misinterpreted my post. Lying under oath is frowned upon by the courts, but not unheard of. It will take a bit of research, but I know of at least one case where the FBI knew an informant was lying, and withheld that information from the prosecutors, thus allowing an innocent man to be convicted. There have also been cases where prosecutors have deliberately hidden the fact that they knew a witness was lying, becuase they knew the person was guilty. The courts later ruled that they were immune from criminal penalties. and even civil suits. I could probably find examples of a trial judge knowing a witness was lying and permitting it if I looked.

No appellate court has ever ruled that perjury is permissible though, so we agree on that.

 

[Claudette]

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?

Ah the wonders of someone who wants to talk.


Ah the wonders of that same someone if he decided he DIDN'T want to talk and had been Mirandized.

Ah the wonders of what would happen then. LOL

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

ROFLMNAO... SWEET FALSE PREMISE...

First, there's nothing in the USC which provides that illegal combatants have any form of civil rights...

Second, he was going to cooperate... and it's for damn sure that her cooperation is a damn site short of what it would be were the Bush Administration still doing the 'interviews'...

Third, there's no way to trust any organization which claims to be fighting Ideological extremism, where the individual at the top of that organization is an ideological extremist...

OK, I'm back.

This man was not an "illegal combatant", he was a US citizen.

WHOA!

What man is that?

I thought we were discussing the 'man' that has travelled to Pakistan, trained with the organization with whom the US is presently engaged in war and upon whom the US is waging that war. He then returned to the US and in while cloistered in private, began to plot the attack on innocent human beings, having adhered to the cause of that aforementioned enemy, with whom the US IS presently at war.

Now since this US Citizen, is not and was not enrolled in any armed force representing any recognized sovereignty, was not wearing the insignia of any military force, was not otherwise openly displaying his role as a combatant, while he was covertly acting as such... HE was clearly a combatant... and just as clearly not a LEGAL Combatant... thus leaving the ONLY POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE AS AN ILLEGAL COMBATANT...

Thus WHOLLY refuting your assertion...

IN FINALITY!​

You cannot designate US Citizens, engaged in a criminal act on US soil as "illegal combatants", and then remove their constitutional rights.

THAT would open up a HUGE can of worms. The consequences of such a law would be staggering.

Oh yes ya can... And what's more, such is a fundament element of the US Constitution.

To wit:

Article Three ...

Section 3.


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

There are no worms, canned or otherwise... which are associated with this principle. In fact the canned worms have become problematic only as a result of this principle having been set aside by the subversive elements of the Progressive movement.

The trials to determine treason do not require tons of evidence... they require two witnesses, and aren't any more complicated and warrant no more ceremony that the process common to the securing of a warrant.

The Charge is asserted, the witnesses come forward, state what they witnessed and if what they state as having witnessed is a citizen adhering to the enemy in a time of war, then within the span of 30 seconds to a minute; the former citizen has forfeited the legal protectios of their civil rights... and now stands naked, as an illegal combatant of the lowest order... a traitor.

A status which will forever covet the unattainable level of respect the culture provides to child rapists in comparison to the loathesome abyss of the traitor.

Now the problem here is that the principle is insufficiently applied...

For instance... I would argue that where one publically defends the rights of those who have clearly waged war on the US, that one has through that action, adhered to the enemy... and this action having been witnessed by two citizens is treason and the perpetrator of such should be captured and detained until the witnesses can be questioned and executed upon their confirming statements.

Under such circumstances, we would not be subject to terrorism... We would not be arguing with idiots over what an "American" is or that there is some 'right' to adhere to the enemy of the US.

 

[Intense]

ROFLMNAO... SWEET FALSE PREMISE...

First, there's nothing in the USC which provides that illegal combatants have any form of civil rights...

Second, he was going to cooperate... and it's for damn sure that her cooperation is a damn site short of what it would be were the Bush Administration still doing the 'interviews'...

Third, there's no way to trust any organization which claims to be fighting Ideological extremism, where the individual at the top of that organization is an ideological extremist...

OK, I'm back.

This man was not an "illegal combatant", he was a US citizen.

WHOA!

What man is that?

I thought we were discussing the 'man' that has travelled to Pakistan, trained with the organization with whom the US is presently engaged in war and upon whom the US is waging that war. He then returned to the US and in while cloistered in private, began to plot the attack on innocent human beings, having adhered to the cause of that aforementioned enemy, with whom the US IS presently at war.

Now since this US Citizen, is not and was not enrolled in any armed force representing any recognized sovereignty, was not wearing the insignia of any military force, was not otherwise openly displaying his role as a combatant, while he was covertly acting as such... HE was clearly a combatant... and just as clearly not a LEGAL Combatant... thus leaving the ONLY POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE AS AN ILLEGAL COMBATANT...

Thus WHOLLY refuting your assertion...

IN FINALITY!​

You cannot designate US Citizens, engaged in a criminal act on US soil as "illegal combatants", and then remove their constitutional rights.

THAT would open up a HUGE can of worms. The consequences of such a law would be staggering.

Oh yes ya can... And what's more, such is a fundament element of the US Constitution.

To wit:

Article Three ...

Section 3.


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

There are no worms, canned or otherwise... which are associated with this principle. In fact the canned worms have become problematic only as a result of this principle having been set aside by the subversive elements of the Progressive movement.

The trials to determine treason do not require tons of evidence... they require two witnesses, and aren't any more complicated and warrant no more ceremony that the process common to the securing of a warrant.

The Charge is asserted, the witnesses come forward, state what they witnessed and if what they state as having witnessed is a citizen adhering to the enemy in a time of war, then within the span of 30 seconds to a minute; the former citizen has forfeited the legal protectios of their civil rights... and now stands naked, as an illegal combatant of the lowest order... a traitor.

A status which will forever covet the unattainable level of respect the culture provides to child rapists in comparison to the loathesome abyss of the traitor.

Now the problem here is that the principle is insufficiently applied...

For instance... I would argue that where one publically defends the rights of those who have clearly waged war on the US, that one has through that action, adhered to the enemy... and this action having been witnessed by two citizens is treason and the perpetrator of such should be captured and detained until the witnesses can be questioned and executed upon their confirming statements.

Under such circumstances, we would not be subject to terrorism... We would not be arguing with idiots over what an "American" is or that there is some 'right' to adhere to the enemy of the US.

He is actually both. Though why he was naturalized is beyond me.

 

[George Costanza]

HA! This coming from a DIPSHIT that makes a boneheaded statement such as the following:
Terrorists are criminals - not "enemy combatants."
Yeah Right Georgie. Get lost you poseur loser.

Calling a terrorist an "enemy combatant" is merely a tactic for shoving them into a category where they are not entitled to procedural safeguards, i.e., rights. Once a person is designated an "enemy combatant," they can be tortured, held for long periods without counsel, denied speedy trial rights, etc., as you well know.

So don't be so quick to defend this practice unless you want to be honest about the basis of your defense.

If I go to a downtown building, plant a bomb in it and set it off, I will be arrested and approriately charged. My case will proceed through the criminal justice system as would any other criminal case - and I will be afforded full constitutional protection while my case proceeds through the system.

When someone from the Middle East does the same thing, how is that any different? It isn't - except, when someone from the Middle East does it, in today's climate following 9/11, mass hysteria/lynch mob mentality immediately swings into effect, and all everyone wants to do is string the guy up without a trial.

There is no organized "enemy" when a terrorist strikes. He may be doing it for political reasons, and these reasons may even be shared by others of his religion or ethnic grouping. But religions or ethnic groupings or loosely organized terrorist cells are not an "enemy" in the sense contemplated by our laws and treaties which would change procedural safeguards for a true, enemy combatant in time of war.

So I repeat my "boneheaded" statement, which you so easily dismiss. Whether you like it or not, there is a considerable body of thought that agrees with my position here.

 

[Vast LWC]

WHOA!

What man is that?

The suspect in the Times Square case, he is a citizen of the United States, period.

I thought we were discussing the 'man' that has travelled to Pakistan, trained with the organization with whom the US is presently engaged in war and upon whom the US is waging that war. He then returned to the US and in while cloistered in private, began to plot the attack on innocent human beings, having adhered to the cause of that aforementioned enemy, with whom the US IS presently at war.

The US is not currently "at war" with the Pakistan. Unless someone declared war while I wasn't looking.

Now if someone wants to declare war on them, that would be an entirely different story.

Now since this US Citizen, is not and was not enrolled in any armed force representing any recognized sovereignty, was not wearing the insignia of any military force, was not otherwise openly displaying his role as a combatant, while he was covertly acting as such... HE was clearly a combatant... and just as clearly not a LEGAL Combatant... thus leaving the ONLY POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE AS AN ILLEGAL COMBATANT...

Thus WHOLLY refuting your assertion...
IN FINALITY!

Since the person in question was an American citizen, and not acting under the direction of a nation we are at war with, his actions are criminal actions punishable under US Law, NOT an act of war.

Thus your entire argument is based on nothing.

Oh yes ya can... And what's more, such is a fundament element of the US Constitution.

To wit:

Article Three ...

Section 3.


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

There are no worms, canned or otherwise... which are associated with this principle. In fact the canned worms have become problematic only as a result of this principle having been set aside by the subversive elements of the Progressive movement.

The trials to determine treason do not require tons of evidence... they require two witnesses, and aren't any more complicated and warrant no more ceremony that the process common to the securing of a warrant.

The Charge is asserted, the witnesses come forward, state what they witnessed and if what they state as having witnessed is a citizen adhering to the enemy in a time of war, then within the span of 30 seconds to a minute; the former citizen has forfeited the legal protectios of their civil rights... and now stands naked, as an illegal combatant of the lowest order... a traitor.

A status which will forever covet the unattainable level of respect the culture provides to child rapists in comparison to the loathesome abyss of the traitor.

Now the problem here is that the principle is insufficiently applied...

For instance... I would argue that where one publically defends the rights of those who have clearly waged war on the US, that one has through that action, adhered to the enemy... and this action having been witnessed by two citizens is treason and the perpetrator of such should be captured and detained until the witnesses can be questioned and executed upon their confirming statements.

Under such circumstances, we would not be subject to terrorism... We would not be arguing with idiots over what an "American" is or that there is some 'right' to adhere to the enemy of the US.

"Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour."

Treason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now,since we are not at war with Pakistan, what part of the definition of treason fits the crime in question?

 

[Vast LWC]

He is actually both. Though why he was naturalized is beyond me.

Well that is a good point. This guy should have put up all kinds of red flags.

 

[Intense]

HA! This coming from a DIPSHIT that makes a boneheaded statement such as the following:
Terrorists are criminals - not "enemy combatants."
Yeah Right Georgie. Get lost you poseur loser.

Calling a terrorist an "enemy combatant" is merely a tactic for shoving them into a category where they are not entitled to procedural safeguards, i.e., rights. Once a person is designated an "enemy combatant," they can be tortured, held for long periods without counsel, denied speedy trial rights, etc., as you well know.

So don't be so quick to defend this practice unless you want to be honest about the basis of your defense.

If I go to a downtown building, plant a bomb in it and set it off, I will be arrested and approriately charged. My case will proceed through the criminal justice system as would any other criminal case - and I will be afforded full constitutional protection while my case proceeds through the system.

When someone from the Middle East does the same thing, how is that any different? It isn't - except, when someone from the Middle East does it, in today's climate following 9/11, mass hysteria/lynch mob mentality immediately swings into effect, and all everyone wants to do is string the guy up without a trial.

There is no organized "enemy" when a terrorist strikes. He may be doing it for political reasons, and these reasons may even be shared by others of his religion or ethnic grouping. But religions or ethnic groupings or loosely organized terrorist cells are not an "enemy" in the sense contemplated by our laws and treaties which would change procedural safeguards for a true, enemy combatant in time of war.

So I repeat my "boneheaded" statement, which you so easily dismiss. Whether you like it or not, there is a considerable body of thought that agrees with my position here.

I'd categorize as an illegal enemy combatant all that refuse to comply with the laws of modern warfare. That is a few measures below pond scum.

 

[Intense]

WHOA!

What man is that?

The suspect in the Times Square case, he is a citizen of the United States, period.

I thought we were discussing the 'man' that has travelled to Pakistan, trained with the organization with whom the US is presently engaged in war and upon whom the US is waging that war. He then returned to the US and in while cloistered in private, began to plot the attack on innocent human beings, having adhered to the cause of that aforementioned enemy, with whom the US IS presently at war.

The US is not currently "at war" with the Pakistan. Unless someone declared war while I wasn't looking.

Now if someone wants to declare war on them, that would be an entirely different story.

Now since this US Citizen, is not and was not enrolled in any armed force representing any recognized sovereignty, was not wearing the insignia of any military force, was not otherwise openly displaying his role as a combatant, while he was covertly acting as such... HE was clearly a combatant... and just as clearly not a LEGAL Combatant... thus leaving the ONLY POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE AS AN ILLEGAL COMBATANT...

Thus WHOLLY refuting your assertion...
IN FINALITY!

Since the person in question was an American citizen, and not acting under the direction of a nation we are at war with, his actions are criminal actions punishable under US Law, NOT an act of war.

Thus your entire argument is based on nothing.

Oh yes ya can... And what's more, such is a fundament element of the US Constitution.

To wit:

Article Three ...

Section 3.


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

There are no worms, canned or otherwise... which are associated with this principle. In fact the canned worms have become problematic only as a result of this principle having been set aside by the subversive elements of the Progressive movement.

The trials to determine treason do not require tons of evidence... they require two witnesses, and aren't any more complicated and warrant no more ceremony that the process common to the securing of a warrant.

The Charge is asserted, the witnesses come forward, state what they witnessed and if what they state as having witnessed is a citizen adhering to the enemy in a time of war, then within the span of 30 seconds to a minute; the former citizen has forfeited the legal protectios of their civil rights... and now stands naked, as an illegal combatant of the lowest order... a traitor.

A status which will forever covet the unattainable level of respect the culture provides to child rapists in comparison to the loathesome abyss of the traitor.

Now the problem here is that the principle is insufficiently applied...

For instance... I would argue that where one publically defends the rights of those who have clearly waged war on the US, that one has through that action, adhered to the enemy... and this action having been witnessed by two citizens is treason and the perpetrator of such should be captured and detained until the witnesses can be questioned and executed upon their confirming statements.

Under such circumstances, we would not be subject to terrorism... We would not be arguing with idiots over what an "American" is or that there is some 'right' to adhere to the enemy of the US.

"Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour."

Treason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now,since we are not at war with Pakistan, what part of the definition of treason fits the crime in question?

An Ideology has declared war on us and our way of life. That Ideology is rooted in extremist Islam. It transcends borders and countries. You really need to deal with your denial. Touchy-feelly on the matter may be the PC thing, but that has nothing to do with what is right. The strike capability is changing rapidly, you are running out of time to choose sides.

 

[George Costanza]

HA! This coming from a DIPSHIT that makes a boneheaded statement such as the following:
Terrorists are criminals - not "enemy combatants."
Yeah Right Georgie. Get lost you poseur loser.

Calling a terrorist an "enemy combatant" is merely a tactic for shoving them into a category where they are not entitled to procedural safeguards, i.e., rights. Once a person is designated an "enemy combatant," they can be tortured, held for long periods without counsel, denied speedy trial rights, etc., as you well know.

So don't be so quick to defend this practice unless you want to be honest about the basis of your defense.

If I go to a downtown building, plant a bomb in it and set it off, I will be arrested and approriately charged. My case will proceed through the criminal justice system as would any other criminal case - and I will be afforded full constitutional protection while my case proceeds through the system.

When someone from the Middle East does the same thing, how is that any different? It isn't - except, when someone from the Middle East does it, in today's climate following 9/11, mass hysteria/lynch mob mentality immediately swings into effect, and all everyone wants to do is string the guy up without a trial.

There is no organized "enemy" when a terrorist strikes. He may be doing it for political reasons, and these reasons may even be shared by others of his religion or ethnic grouping. But religions or ethnic groupings or loosely organized terrorist cells are not an "enemy" in the sense contemplated by our laws and treaties which would change procedural safeguards for a true, enemy combatant in time of war.

So I repeat my "boneheaded" statement, which you so easily dismiss. Whether you like it or not, there is a considerable body of thought that agrees with my position here.

I'd categorize as an illegal enemy combatant all that refuse to comply with the laws of modern warfare. That is a few measures below pond scum.

"All that refuse to comply with the laws of modern warfare" . . . are . . . "a few measures below pond scum."

Last time I looked, the Rules of Warfare prohibited torture. So where does that leave those who advocate torture?

 

[Intense]

Calling a terrorist an "enemy combatant" is merely a tactic for shoving them into a category where they are not entitled to procedural safeguards, i.e., rights. Once a person is designated an "enemy combatant," they can be tortured, held for long periods without counsel, denied speedy trial rights, etc., as you well know.

So don't be so quick to defend this practice unless you want to be honest about the basis of your defense.

If I go to a downtown building, plant a bomb in it and set it off, I will be arrested and approriately charged. My case will proceed through the criminal justice system as would any other criminal case - and I will be afforded full constitutional protection while my case proceeds through the system.

When someone from the Middle East does the same thing, how is that any different? It isn't - except, when someone from the Middle East does it, in today's climate following 9/11, mass hysteria/lynch mob mentality immediately swings into effect, and all everyone wants to do is string the guy up without a trial.

There is no organized "enemy" when a terrorist strikes. He may be doing it for political reasons, and these reasons may even be shared by others of his religion or ethnic grouping. But religions or ethnic groupings or loosely organized terrorist cells are not an "enemy" in the sense contemplated by our laws and treaties which would change procedural safeguards for a true, enemy combatant in time of war.

So I repeat my "boneheaded" statement, which you so easily dismiss. Whether you like it or not, there is a considerable body of thought that agrees with my position here.

I'd categorize as an illegal enemy combatant all that refuse to comply with the laws of modern warfare. That is a few measures below pond scum.

"All that refuse to comply with the laws of modern warfare" . . . are . . . "a few measures below pond scum."

Last time I looked, the Rules of Warfare prohibited torture. So where does that leave those who advocate torture?

Haven't had this conversation a million times before??? What is torture??? How many can you show were even effected by what you call torture??? Maybe all Illegal Combatants should just be executed on the spot??? I don't like extreme treatment, I believe at some level it may be justified, and with oversight, necessary to prevent catastrophe.

 

[George Costanza]

I'd categorize as an illegal enemy combatant all that refuse to comply with the laws of modern warfare. That is a few measures below pond scum.

"All that refuse to comply with the laws of modern warfare" . . . are . . . "a few measures below pond scum."

Last time I looked, the Rules of Warfare prohibited torture. So where does that leave those who advocate torture?

Haven't had this conversation a million times before??? What is torture??? How many can you show were even effected by what you call torture??? Maybe all Illegal Combatants should just be executed on the spot??? I don't like extreme treatment, I believe at some level it may be justified, and with oversight, necessary to prevent catastrophe.

I'll give you that one man's torture is another man's "intense interrogation." I view water boarding as torture. If you don't, then so be it.

I will say this, however - the fact that a person is "not affected" by harsh treatment does not mean that it is not torture. Properly applied, electrical shock does not leave any lasting effect.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"All that refuse to comply with the laws of modern warfare" . . . are . . . "a few measures below pond scum."

Last time I looked, the Rules of Warfare prohibited torture. So where does that leave those who advocate torture?

Haven't had this conversation a million times before??? What is torture??? How many can you show were even effected by what you call torture??? Maybe all Illegal Combatants should just be executed on the spot??? I don't like extreme treatment, I believe at some level it may be justified, and with oversight, necessary to prevent catastrophe.

I'll give you that one man's torture is another man's "intense interrogation." I view water boarding as torture. If you don't, then so be it.

I will say this, however - the fact that a person is "not affected" by harsh treatment does not mean that it is not torture. Properly applied, electrical shock does not leave any lasting effect.

I know people who use electric shock to enhance their sex lives, but I will always think it is torture if someone tries to use it on me.

GC is correct that terrorists are not automatically enemy combatants, lawful of otherwise. They can be, but they have to meet a narrow definition. "...anyone who directly supported al Qaeda, the Taliban or an associated group involved in hostile acts against the United States or its allies." While many terrorist fit this definition, many do not.