Exactly LWT. Just my point as well. Sam Whiskey is an example of what she was talking about. It's like saying all fat people are lazy, or all blonde women are stupid, etc. etc. All muslims are violent extremists with ulterior motives. Generalising an entire group of people because of the actions of a few. And in this case, downplaying the violence perpetrated by those who don't fit this generalization.
Initial Analysis Of The Times Square Bombing Attempt
by leavingwt 166 Replies latest social current
-
-
undercover
checks and balances...
Liberals keep the far right from declaring war on anything that doesn't represent mom, baseball and apple pie and the conservatives keep the far left from being too soft and allowing the country to be over run by people who want to harm us.
-
leavingwt
Shahzad and Miranda Rights
. . .
Based on what we know, it sounds like the FBI made a good judgment call here. Shahzad is a U.S. citizen who has been living in the United States and was caught in the United States for a crime committed in the United States: Surely this is a case for federal court.
Plus, the FBI’s strategy was a smart one if you recognize the detailed maze of Miranda doctrine. It’s a reasonably safe bet that a court would allow an initial pre–Miranda inquiry to be admissible under the public safety exception of New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984). Then, after Shahzad made clear that he’s a talker, the FBI could insert the Miranda warnings and get the waiver and then get Shahzad to repeat what he just said pre-waiver. Because the two-stage interview was not an intentional two-step interrogation technique designed to violate Miranda, a court would allow the post–Miranda statement under Justice Kennedy’s controlling opinion in Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004). So from a legal standpoint, this was pretty cleverly done.
The countervailing concern is that perhaps Shahzad would invoke his Miranda rights and then stop giving the FBI the information they need. Perhaps obtaining the information was more important than getting a statement that would be admissible in court. But even if that’s true, that’s a call that the FBI could make on the ground. Consider the facts. The FBI had taken Shahzad into custody and started to question him initially without Miranda warnings under the public safety exception. Let’s imagine that Shahzad’s demeanor left the impression that he might speak to the FBI without Miranda warnings but that he might clam up if read the warnings. If that were the case, the FBI could lawfully make the decision of whether to continue to question Shahzad without Miranda warnings or whether to give him the warnings and obtain a waiver. In other words, the FBI could make the call on the ground based on his conduct.
Importantly, though, it would not have violated Shahzad’s constitutional rights to not read him his Miranda rights. A lot of people assume that the police are required to read a suspect his rights when he is arrested. That is, they assume that one of a person’s rights is the right to be read their rights. It often happens that way on Law & Order, but that’s not what the law actually requires. Under Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003), it is lawful for the police to not read a suspect his Miranda rights, interrogate him, and then obtain a statement that would be inadmissible in court. Chavez holds that a person’s constitutional rights are violated only if the prosecution tries to have the statement admitted in court. See id. at 772–73. Indeed, the prosecution is even allowed to admit any physical evidence discovered as a fruit of the statement obtained in violation of Miranda — only the actual statement is excluded. See United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004). So while it may sound weird, it turns out that obtaining a statement outside Miranda but not admitting it in court is lawful.
As a result, the FBI would have acted entirely lawfully in making a choice on the ground as to whether to read Shahzad his Miranda rights. The choice would have been between the odds of getting a statement that they could not use in court without the warnings versus the odds of getting a statement that they could use in court with the warnings. Shahzad turned out to be a talker, so the FBI gave him the warnings, got his waiver, and then continued to get more statements from him — all of which will be admissible in federal court.
-
5thGeneration
I said today's liberals.
-
JWoods
But none of the Sikh kids were killed by these rednecks, I presume?
Sorry, but I don't buy the idea that Americans in general are out gunning for any Muslim in the streets.
The terror attack problem is clearly by Islamic terrorists against Americans, not the other way around.
BTW - aren't you the person who has question me several times for my obervation that liberals take the Islamacist side in these issues?
You just did it again.
-
leavingwt
Beks,
When I turn on MSNBC, I see their commentators promoting the idea that Tea Party members are all racists. This is why many conservatives are laughing at Contessa.
-LWT
-
beksbks
You just did it again.
How exactly Woods?
Sorry, but I don't buy the idea that Americans in general are out gunning for any Muslim in the streets.
That's not what I said. I said if more people think like Sam, that all muslims are the enemy, there is bound to be violence and retribution. I gave an example of exactly that. What parent would not be concerned that thier child might be that one statistic? It's like vaccinations. Sure the odds may not be very high, but what if your child is one of the few who dies?
-
JWoods
How exactly Woods?
By piling into LeavingWT's thread on the analysis of the times square bombing attempt, agreeing with Contessa nutbar Brewer, and trying to turn the discussion into "the danger innocent Muslims face from redneck Americans..."
Many liberals are still in denial that this guy was a Talibanist radical and desperately wanted him to be a Tea Party conservative.
-
notverylikely
If today's bleeding heart liberals ran things during WWII the Japs would own most of Asia and we'd all be speaking German.
Actually, they did. FDR was a Democrat. Learning something will help you to look less foolish.
Come on - you have no evidence that any muslim child is in danger here from any outraged American.
Just as Sam Whiskey had no evidence anyone was in danger from that Muslim child. Zero sum game so far.
-
beksbks
Absolute horse pucky Woods!! My point was the exact same as my point on the AZ immigration law threads. America tries to have standards that make us different than most. Better. We have laws, that are in place to protect the innocent.
I have to give Glenn Beck some kudos here
The Right Scoop caught the exchange this morning, which featured a determined Beck squaring off against Brian Kilmeade, who wanted to make an exception. “He’s a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens,” said Beck.
“He’s a threat to the country, that’s different,” countered Kilmeade.
“If you’re a citizen you obey the law and follow the Constitution,” said Beck. “He has all the rights under the Constitution.”
Later, the money quote from Beck: “We don’t shred the Constitution when it’s popular. We do the right thing.”