Terror suspicion, guns, miranda, and citizenship.

[SirNitram]

The law-enforcement method of counter-terrorism worked perfectly, which is inevitably a sign we will get insane conservative ideas, as well as uncovering how badly the whole system before worked.

So let's start with the unnoticed problems.

1. If you're on the terror watchlist, even if you are, indeed, known to be in a terrorist organization, you can get a gun legally. Report on GAO finding this. Of course, when this was pushed to to the Senate, Graham opposed it immediately. Link

This might not be a problem, if this response.. Restrict the list to proof, not suspicion.. was consistant with other constitutionally guaranteeed rights.

2. The Miranda Rights being read, part of the things that now count as a constitutionally secured right, is not something he thinks we should apply to mere suspects. Link This is again defeated by reality, as the NYC bomber is apparently talking and he was read his Miranda rights.

3. Lieberman now proposes that if you are 'associated' with a terror group, the State department strips your citizenship. Link This is, of course, directly against the 14th Amendment. Fox notes that Graham has a problem with it.. Oh, not that it violates part of the Constitution. Not at all. It doesn't touch the 2nd, so he's okay. He just wants to know if he can still try them for treason. Link

As usual, alot of people hate the idea of trying this guy in criminal court. As opposed to Military Tribunals, which handed Hicks 9 months, the rest suspended. Or Hamden, who got 5 months, the rest credited. The only other guy they got refused to mount a defense.

As opposed to civilian courts, which tried 593 defendents for various types of related charges, and got 523 convictions. Which is.. 88 percent, to the Tribunals 15. And 20 years is the average handed down from them, as opposed to months.

Which is harder on terrorists, again?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Just a quick FYI regarding miranda rights.

Miranda only has to be given if you are in custody and under interrogation. Custody is determined by the reasonable person standard; if a reasonable person would not feel they could leave when they wanted to.

For example; Nitram and I are carrying on a conversation in a park. I'm in full uniform and Nitram and I are just having a typical conversation. I ask Nitram if he has ever killed anyone. He tells me that he has. I asked him who, how, why, when, what, etc. He gives me all those details. Using that information we're able to find the bodies, and since it is obviously murder his statements can be used against him even though miranda was never read to him.

[SirNitram]

Just a quick FYI regarding miranda rights.

Miranda only has to be given if you are in custody and under interrogation. Custody is determined by the reasonable person standard; if a reasonable person would not feel they could leave when they wanted to.

For example; Nitram and I are carrying on a conversation in a park. I'm in full uniform and Nitram and I are just having a typical conversation. I ask Nitram if he has ever killed anyone. He tells me that he has. I asked him who, how, why, when, what, etc. He gives me all those details. Using that information we're able to find the bodies, and since it is obviously murder his statements can be used against him even though miranda was never read to him.

I should first, acknowledge this is totally true(Except where I murdered anyone. Really.). Secondily, this is in fact how it went. He talked in full cooperation, then was read his rights.. And kept talking in interrogation. Link

[Civil War Man]

I was watching last night's Daily Show earlier today, and they brought up the thing about Miranda. Specifically John McCain being adamant that they should not have read Shahzad his rights.

Then, after providing the audience ample warning, they showed a clip from Fox and Friends where Glenn Beck was having an arguement with the other commentators because he could not criticize the decision. Miranda is a guaranteed right, Shahzad is an American citizen, ergo when he was arrested and interrogated he had to be read his Miranda rights.

Glenn fucking Beck was acting as the voice of reason on this issue.

[Feil]

The citizenship bill surprises me. I'm used to the Executive blatantly ignoring the 14th and depriving US Citizens of whatever they want without due course of anything, but actually trying to get that sort of behavior enshrined into law is a step I never expected.

[Shroom Man 777]

Guns are a right, as said in the American constitution. Miranda, like cars, is a privilege.

[ShadowDragon8685]

The Supreme Court and Clarence Earl Gideon disagree with you, Shroom Man 777.


Or rather, they disagree with the stance I suspect that you're lampooning. I can't tell for certain; my sarcasmometer redlined and then shorted out the moment I logged onto StarDestroyer.net.

[Shroom Man 777]

Oh, it is? Damn!

But it only applies to American citizens, right? So if some guy in some random country becomes a POW or something, and is subject to interrogation at the hands of American agencies that AREN'T law enforcement, then the Miranda rights have nothing to do with it at all?

(I'd love to see the methodology and procedures and technicalities and legal whatevers involved in dealing with terror suspects taken from other countries and put in Gitmo. No, not the clinical procedures in waterboarding and the aspiration precautions and soft liquid diets given to simulated drownees, but the legalese involved in illegal extradition and stuff. Can anyone give me a graph or some other document?)

[SirNitram]

A quick check of the decision Miranda v. Arizona and the fallout from it, does not indicate any waiver from the right if they're not a citizen. A quick check of news on the subject backs this up. In addition, according to the Politifact skewering of the 'Obama orders military to mirandize detainees!' claim, the FBI does appear to be mirandizing certain suspects in afghanistan to preserve proper evidence and statements.

[irishmick79]

I really don't understand why conservatives get so agitated over Miranda warnings. It's been a law enforcement SOP for, how many years now? It's not like we're unlocking the gates and letting these guys waltz free.

[Einzige]

I was watching last night's Daily Show earlier today, and they brought up the thing about Miranda. Specifically John McCain being adamant that they should not have read Shahzad his rights.

Then, after providing the audience ample warning, they showed a clip from Fox and Friends where Glenn Beck was having an arguement with the other commentators because he could not criticize the decision. Miranda is a guaranteed right, Shahzad is an American citizen, ergo when he was arrested and interrogated he had to be read his Miranda rights.

Glenn fucking Beck was acting as the voice of reason on this issue.

We ought to learn from this. You can drive a wedge between these motherfuckers if you know how to approach it.

[Akhlut]

I really don't understand why conservatives get so agitated over Miranda warnings. It's been a law enforcement SOP for, how many years now? It's not like we're unlocking the gates and letting these guys waltz free.

I really don't get it either. Are they upset that the suspect has a right to be silent? That he can get a lawyer appointed to him if he's too broke to get one?

Realistically, the suspect could remain silent even if he didn't have that right, or he could just say whatever bullshit he wanted to anyway. And, what's wrong with giving him an attorney? If he's actually innocent, perish the thought, he might need some legal help to maneveur a court in order to prove as such.

[The Spartan]

I really don't understand why conservatives get so agitated over Miranda warnings. It's been a law enforcement SOP for, how many years now? It's not like we're unlocking the gates and letting these guys waltz free.

Because they're angry and scared. The basic outburst, I'll call it, goes something like, "Why should they get any rights? They're terrorists!" Thing is, the Constitutional law on this is pretty clear cut. The 14th Amendment states, in part: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Notice that it doesn't say "citizen", it says "person".

[Einzige]

I really don't understand why conservatives get so agitated over Miranda warnings. It's been a law enforcement SOP for, how many years now? It's not like we're unlocking the gates and letting these guys waltz free.

Because they're angry and scared. The basic outburst, I'll call it, goes something like, "Why should they get any rights? They're terrorists!" Thing is, the Constitutional law on this is pretty clear cut. The 14th Amendment states, in part: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Notice that it doesn't say "citizen", it says "person".

And so here's what the argument ought to be:

"Hey! You authoritarian motherfuckers! Can you read? Have you read the Constitution? Right here, the 14th Amendment, black-and-white. Stop trying to get around it. We all know conservatives hate the Constitution, but you'll learn it and love it."

[The Spartan]

Yeah... that doesn't accomplish anything. They don't care what the Constitutions says. If these nutjobs even realize that's what drives it they want to have it changed. It's not about the Law or the Constitution to them. Remember? Scared and angry.

[Einzige]

Yeah... that doesn't accomplish anything. They don't care what the Constitutions says. If these nutjobs even realize that's what drives it they want to have it changed. It's not about the Law or the Constitution to them. Remember? Scared and angry.

But they say that they do. And that is sufficient. It's exactly what Nixon did in the 1960s, except in reverse. You target their intellectuals and tell them that they'd get a fair shake under your system if only they'd learn to apply their own more honestly. Your convince the intellectuals, or the mouthpieces, and they set the tone and tenor for the rest of the movement.

Try it sometime. You might like it.

[The Spartan]

I have tried it. That's how I know they want the Constitution changed. These are the kind of people people who think that terrorists shouldn't have rights, because they're terrorists. These are kind of people that get mad about criminals having rights, because they're criminals. Same thing goes for illegal immigrants because they shouldn't be here*. It's many of these same kind of people that get mad when they get a ticket for speeding because there are so many "real criminals" out there.

They are not rational. They're angry and scared and want their blankey.




*Technically they're right in that they shouldn't be here, hence illegal immigrant, but it doesn't then follow that they have no rights.

[Crossroads Inc.]

A lot of the Rights reaction and assfuckery on this boils down to many of them believing:
"You are guilty until Proven innocent."

I can't tell you how many times I have talked ot people here in Arizona that fervently believe along those lines, they will tell you "If he was innocent, why was he arrested?" or "If you are innocent, you have nothing to worry about." Its not so much the Right Wing wanting to take the miranda rights away from "terrorists" its that many of them wish they could take them away all together.

Also, know a really good part about them? They are applied to ANYONE arrested in America, it doesn't matter if you are a citizen or not. thug form the other side of the world is still owed the Miranda rights if arrested by a Police office on American soil.

Which Makes John McCains push to strip any American convicted of being a terrorist, stripping them OF thier citizen ship. All the more pigheaded.

[General Zod]

I was watching last night's Daily Show earlier today, and they brought up the thing about Miranda. Specifically John McCain being adamant that they should not have read Shahzad his rights.

Then, after providing the audience ample warning, they showed a clip from Fox and Friends where Glenn Beck was having an arguement with the other commentators because he could not criticize the decision. Miranda is a guaranteed right, Shahzad is an American citizen, ergo when he was arrested and interrogated he had to be read his Miranda rights.

Glenn fucking Beck was acting as the voice of reason on this issue.

The real hilarity is that McCain's voting record can be interpreted to show that he thinks terrorists are okay as long as they're only targeting abortion clinics.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/06/mcc ... n-bombers/

– Voting against making anti-choice violence a federal crime. As the Jed Report notes, McCain voted in 1993 and 1994 against making “bombings, arson and blockades at abortion clinics, and shootings and threats of violence against doctors and nurses who perform abortions” federal crimes.

– Opposing Colorado’s “Bubble Law.” McCain said he opposed Colorado’s “Bubble Law,” which prohibited abortion protesters from getting within 8 feet of women entering clinics [Denver Post, 2/27/00]. The law was later upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

– Voting to allow those fined for violence at clinics to avoid penalties by declaring bankruptcy. NARAL Pro-Chioce America notes that McCain “voted to allow perpetrators of violence or harassment at reproductive-health clinics to avoid paying the fines assessed against them for their illegal acts by declaring bankruptcy.”

[irishmick79]

A lot of the Rights reaction and assfuckery on this boils down to many of them believing:
"You are guilty until Proven innocent."

I can't tell you how many times I have talked ot people here in Arizona that fervently believe along those lines, they will tell you "If he was innocent, why was he arrested?" or "If you are innocent, you have nothing to worry about." Its not so much the Right Wing wanting to take the miranda rights away from "terrorists" its that many of them wish they could take them away all together.

Also, know a really good part about them? They are applied to ANYONE arrested in America, it doesn't matter if you are a citizen or not. thug form the other side of the world is still owed the Miranda rights if arrested by a Police office on American soil.

Which Makes John McCains push to strip any American convicted of being a terrorist, stripping them OF thier citizen ship. All the more pigheaded.

To be fair, McCain just doesn't want to read you your miranda warnings if you get mixed up with terrorism. It's Joe Lieberman who wants to actually take your citizenship away.

[Crossroads Inc.]

AH ok, I got my idiots mixed up then, I knew that was being pushed and got Joe and John mixed up.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

AH ok, I got my idiots mixed up then, I knew that was being pushed and got Joe and John mixed up.

Other than the mix-up, I say you nailed it. The right wing simply wants the right to sic the SWAT teams at 3 in the morning on every person who fits a rough parameter of undesirability to them and ship them off to prison. It's the same thing the apartheid South Africans did, the Soviets did, the Nazis did, the Confederacy did (and monetized it!), medieval kings surely all did, and so on and so forth and turtles all the way down.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I think the reason they don't want terrorists mirandized is because it would somehow make it harder to put them before a military tribunal. They want them treated like enemy combatants, and not american prisoners, and somehow miranda gets in the way of that.

[Oscar Wilde]

As usual, alot of people hate the idea of trying this guy in criminal court.

Just curious, why is this?

[ShadowDragon8685]

As usual, alot of people hate the idea of trying this guy in criminal court.

Just curious, why is this?

Because deep in their slimy, ichor-ridden hearts, they don't care about things like "due process" and "rule of law."

They're scared. They're scared, and angry, and like all scared and angry people, they want to lash out.

They don't want justice, they want mob justice. They want to grab this guy and tie him down and pound on him from his toes up to his head, breaking every bone in his body along the way. They want to set him on fire and listen to him scream and watch him writhe in agony. They want to attach jump leads to his testicles and watch him twitch. They want to shove an iron railroad spike up his ass and heat it until it's glowing cherry-red. They want to shove a glass rod down his urethrea and bang his cock with a hammer. They want to gouge out his eyes, rip out his tongue, cut off his cheeks. They want to pound splinters of wood under his fingernails, they want to scorch his nipples, they want to give him forty lashes with a cat.

They want him to suffer, they want him to die, as painful, as brutal, as inhumane and undignified a death as they can wreak upon him. They want to hurt him, because they feel he has hurt them.


And to their way of mind, they could do that if only that damn dirty criminal court with it's things like "due process" and throwing out evidence over improper gathering, weren't standing in their way. Because they see a military court as having no rules save those it sets for itself; no higher court to answer to. They see the military tribunal as the answer to their desires to hurt him, and the criminal court as that damn dirty librul standing up with a sheet of paper and saying "no, you can't do that."