Yeah LWT, that was sarcasm, sorry.
Initial Analysis Of The Times Square Bombing Attempt
by leavingwt 166 Replies latest social current
-
-
leavingwt
Beks -- I was using a bit of sarcasm, myself with the Ashcroft strikethrough. I'm in favor of the Rule of Law, so I would prefer that they follow the law or adjust the law using the Constitutional procedure.
-
leavingwt
ACLU Slams Holder
. . .
The following can be attributed to Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU:
"Mr. Holder's request for a broad exception to the Miranda requirement for terrorism cases is not only discouraging, but also bewildering. For one thing, there is no evidence that the Miranda requirement has obstructed the government from obtaining information from suspected terrorists - Mr. Holder himself has said that the terrorism suspects detained over the last few months provided information to the FBI even after being informed of their right to remain silent. More fundamentally, legislation that significantly undermined Miranda would be unconstitutional; as Mr. Holder should know as well as anyone, the Miranda requirement is rooted in the Fifth Amendment."
Their criticism is understandable. What we've seen in the investigations spawned from the attempted terrorist acts of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and Faisal Shahzad is that the proper application of Miranda rights neither inhibited, nor was inhibited by the need to conduct a thorough investigation-slash-intelligence gathering operation. This can basically be seen as a victory for both proper law enforcement and Miranda rights -- though I'm hesitant to use such a heady word like "victory" in the latter case, since Mirandization was only opposed by inveterate political hacks who either a) had no idea what they were talking about or b) did know and just lied about it.
Yet, for reasons that are difficult to fathom, given the unalloyed successes of law enforcement, Holder has decided to blink in the face of critics of Mirandization. Classic "solution in search of a problem" decision-making.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/10/aclu-slams-eric-holder-on_n_570174.html
-
purplesofa
nevermind
hi e1
-
beksbks
Purps?!!
-
leavingwt
Purps -- I saw your article. It angers me that we've spent so much money on the TSA -- for what?
-
purplesofa
Sorry, took it down as the thread went on to the miranda issue, but will repost, I am a bit out of the loop these days.
purps
Shahzad on U.S. Travel Security List Since 1999
Posted by CBS News Investigates 46 comments- Share 930
TECS is a major law enforcement computer system that allows its approximately 120,000 users from 20 federal agencies to share information. The database is designed to identify individuals suspected of or involved in violation of federal law.
CBS News Exclusive Picture of Shahzad
The system has been recently called inefficient by members of Congress. In late March, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Susan Collins of Maine criticized the system in a letter to DHS, writing that, "Current functionality does not allow interoperability among databases, fast searching of information, modern interfaces for users of the system, or sufficient security to protect critical terrorist travel data."
A modernization of the system began in 2008 and is expected to be completed by 2015.
Editor's Note: an earlier version of this story referred to Shahzad's name appearing on a Department of Homeland Security travel list from 1999 to 2008. That list was part of the Traveler Enforcement Compliance System (TECS), which was managed until 2003 by the U.S. Customs Service which become part of the Department of Homeland Security.
-
OUTLAW
Hey Purps!!..
.......................
-
leavingwt
Robert Wright, blogging for the NY Times. . .
The Making of a Terrorist
. . .
Unfortunately, President Obama isn’t discarding the Bush-Cheney playbook that has given jihadist recruiters such effective talking points. Quite the contrary: the White House thinks the moral of the Shahzad story may be that we should get more aggressive in Pakistan, possibly putting more boots on the ground. And already Obama has authorized the assassination of al-Awlaki.
Even leaving aside the constitutional questions (al-Awlaki is an American citizen), doesn’t Obama see what a gift the killing of this imam would be to his cause? Just ask the Romans how their anti-Jesus-movement strategy worked out. (And Jesus’s followers didn’t have their leader’s sermons saved in ready-to-go video and audio files; al-Awlaki’s resurrection would be vivid indeed.)
When you look at how much real-world evidence there is against the views of war-on-terror hawks, it’s not surprising that they would construct their own little universe, a place where “jihadi intent” is an uncaused cause, and our only hope is to kill or intimidate the people who, through some magical process that defies comprehension, have been possessed by it.
What is surprising is that Barack Obama, who became the Democratic nominee for president largely because he had opposed the Iraq war, seems increasingly to be taking his cues from the people who so disastrously supported it.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/the-making-of-a-terrorist/?ref=opinion
-
beksbks
It's a shame a guy who appeared to actually get it, is now pandering to the morons. To the detriment of us all.