# John McCain and Peter King Can Go To Hell **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 4, 2010, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-mccain-and-peter-king-can-go-to-hell/538308 "2010-05-04T18:09:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Camus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ba8739/32.png) [@Camus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Camus)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-mccain-and-peter-king-can-go-to-hell/538308/41 "2010-05-05T11:04:46Z")
Just to amend my statement, _any questions by police about things that were not an imminent threat to public safety_ - such as the identities of co-conspirators for the Times Square plot, where he was trained, or long term plots - would require a Miranda warning. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-mccain-and-peter-king-can-go-to-hell/538308/42 "2010-05-05T12:09:29Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Looks like a media trend: > > Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly– down 3% > > MSNCB’s Rachel Maddow – down 8% > > Fox News’ Greta Van Sustren – down 13% > > Fox News’ Sean Hannity – down 17% > > MSNBC’s Chris Matthews – down 23% > > MSNBC’s Headline News – down 26% > > MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann – down 28% > > CNN’s Wolf Blitzer – down 37% > > CNN’s Campbell Brown – down 39% > > CNN’s Anderson Cooper – down 41% > > CNN’s Larry King – down 46% This is very dishonest of you, **Magiver**. I’ve seen exactly this claim on other forums, and those posters were kind enough to link to the actual source of that information. From the link, above, it’s easy to see that Beck’s ratings have dropped 30% in _five weeks_. The trend that you quoted without any [other](http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/09/msnbc-declines-broadly-among-adults-25-54-vs-2009-q1/47859)details, though, is over the course of an entire _year_, coming off of an election year. The two numbers you are trying to compare have nothing in common… unless, of course, you want to extrapolate Beck’s numbers out to twelve months…? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-mccain-and-peter-king-can-go-to-hell/538308/43 "2010-05-05T12:25:08Z")
I wonder what Jon Stewart’s numbers are like… ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-mccain-and-peter-king-can-go-to-hell/538308/44 "2010-05-05T17:31:37Z")
> [@Camus](#): > > The public safety exception, established in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 657-59 (1984), is very limited though. In Quarles, an armed robbery suspect fled into a supermarket and when apprehended, police noticed that he had an empty gun holster. Given the open and public nature of the supermarket, police questioned him about the gun’s whereabouts without a Miranda warning despite the fact that he was certainly in police custody. > > In the case of Faisal Shahzad (the confessed Times Square bomber), the public safety exception to Miranda would cover any police questioning of him immediately after taking him into custody about whether there were any other bombs or bomb plots that were imminent. Anything that was not an imminent threat to public safety - such as the identities of co-conspirators for the Times Square plot, where he was trained, or long term plots - would require a Miranda warning. Cool, note that nothing you’ve said here contradicts anything I’ve said. It does elaborate on it though, so thanks for the useful information. If you had read my post more in depth I think you’d have seen that it was clear I was aware that the exception was limited (especially since I linked to an article that directly quotes an FBI Deputy Director who said the suspect was initially not Mirandized but later was.) That follows exactly how you would expect it to happen. They arrest Faisal, and immediately start asking him if there are any other bombs hidden somewhere, that would clearly fall under the exception. Once that portion of it was over and they were just interested in questioning him as a suspect, he was Mirandized and continued to cooperate. That’s both how I expected it to happen, how it should have happened under my understanding of the public safety exception, and **in fact how it did happen.** > [@](#): > > Please don’t assume the authority of a criminal law expert if you are not one. The Miranda warnings that are near common knowledge in the US today are paraphrased from the holding of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). If you had read that case, you would know that the very purpose of the warning is to ensure that a suspect’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights have not been violated by warning him/her of them. The Court established a bright-line rule so that if someone did want to waive their rights, such a waiver would be knowing and intelligently made (at least in respect to their constitutional rights). Without either an exception or a knowing and intelligent waiver, any un-Mirandized statement offered for use against the speaker of the statement will be deemed a violation of their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The Court in Miranda didn’t make up a rule by sticking their finger up in the air and pronouncing it good, they based it on the Constitution (or more specifically, the Bill of Rights). Hey idiot, last I checked nowhere in my post did I “assume the authority of a criminal law expert.” I’ve been posting on these boards for something like five years, and I’ve spoken about legal and constitutional issues many times. I’ve never once claimed that I have any formal legal training, I don’t think any reasonable person could have construed that I was presenting myself as a criminal law expert. I do conclude you’re an ignorant, stupid douchebag for straw-manning me. Anyway, just like the last portion of your quoted post; aside from you being a liar and trying to present me as someone that was claiming to be a “criminal law expert”, nothing in this second portion of your post contradicts anything I’ve said. Where did I say that the court “made up a rule by sticking their finger up in the air?” Nowhere, that’s where. If we actually look back to the original words I typed: > [@](#): > > Furthermore, not reading someone their Miranda rights is only bad for the prosecution. You’re not denying anyone of any of their constitutional rights when you don’t Mirandize them, all you’re doing is making anything you get from that person toxic in terms of its admissibility in later criminal trials (i.e., you’re fucking up your investigation.) You’ll note that nothing I’ve said there is factually incorrect, and you do not need to be a “criminal law expert” to realize that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-mccain-and-peter-king-can-go-to-hell/538308/45 "2010-05-05T17:41:58Z")
Just popping in to add that once the public safety issue is disposed of, the suspect may be given Miranda warnings immediately and questioned, without the need for a period of time to dissipate the un-Mirandized taint as is otherwise required to restore the requisite presumption of voluntariness to a Miranda waiver. (Missouri v. Seibert). ---
**Author:** ![MeDrewNotYou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@MeDrewNotYou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeDrewNotYou)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-mccain-and-peter-king-can-go-to-hell/538308/46 "2010-05-05T20:46:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Just popping in to add that once the public safety issue is disposed of, the suspect may be given Miranda warnings immediately and questioned, without the need for a period of time to dissipate the un-Mirandized taint as is otherwise required to restore the requisite presumption of voluntariness to a Miranda waiver. (Missouri v. Seibert). Hey! My thread caught a Bricker! 😉 I’m not sure I’m clear on what you’re saying here. My understanding of what you just said: After taking care of any immediate threats w/o Miranda warnings, you give the suspect his warnings and then if he talks, any statements are fair game. So once he’s read his rights, at whatever point in time that occurs, he can’t claim that any statement afterwards was coerced or given without knowledge of his rights. In that sense, the Miranda warning is like a magic wand that you wave and from that point forward his statements are fair game (assuming no police misbehavior to complicate things). Is that a fair summary? I would assume that once informed of their rights, the suspect wouldn’t have a valid complaint. What was the situation in the case you mentioned that challenges the common-sense (at least to me) interpretation? ---
**Author:** ![Camus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ba8739/32.png) [@Camus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Camus)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-mccain-and-peter-king-can-go-to-hell/538308/47 "2010-05-05T21:44:50Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Cool, note that nothing you’ve said here contradicts anything I’ve said. It does elaborate on it though, so thanks for the useful information. If you had read my post more in depth I think you’d have seen that it was clear I was aware that the exception was limited (especially since I linked to an article that directly quotes an FBI Deputy Director who said the suspect was initially not Mirandized but later was.) I read your post. You mentioned nothing about any limitations or problems with the public safety exception. If you want to incorporate information from an article, mentioning more than one salient point from the article might be a start. > [@](#): > > Hey idiot, last I checked nowhere in my post did I “assume the authority of a criminal law expert.” I’ve been posting on these boards for something like five years, and I’ve spoken about legal and constitutional issues many times. I’ve never once claimed that I have any formal legal training, I don’t think any reasonable person could have construed that I was presenting myself as a criminal law expert. I do conclude you’re an ignorant, stupid douchebag for straw-manning me. > > Anyway, just like the last portion of your quoted post; aside from you being a liar and trying to present me as someone that was claiming to be a “criminal law expert”, nothing in this second portion of your post contradicts anything I’ve said. > > … > > You’ll note that nothing I’ve said there is factually incorrect, and you do not need to be a “criminal law expert” to realize that. You called everyone idiots and you **did** give factually incorrect information in the guise of you pretending to know what you’re talking about. Specifically: [QUOTE=Martin Hyde] You’re not denying anyone of any of their constitutional rights when you don’t Mirandize them [/QUOTE] But please, don’t let me stop you from spreading your ignorance and playing the victim. Typing on an internet message board “many times” about legal and constitutional issues also does not magically mean that you know what you’re talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-mccain-and-peter-king-can-go-to-hell/538308/48 "2010-05-05T22:01:21Z")
> [@MeDrewNotYou](#): > > Hey! My thread caught a Bricker! 😉 > > I’m not sure I’m clear on what you’re saying here. It sounds to me that **Bricker** is saying that if the police violate Miranda and ask questions before Mirandizing the suspect, they can’t immediately Mirandize him and question him, and have the questions after the Miranda warning be admissible. There must be some kind of “cooling-off” period between the Miranda violation and the Miranda warning being given. However, the cooling-off period does apply to the “immediate public safety” Miranda exception. The police may ask questions related to public safety without a Miranda warning, Mirandize the suspect and then ask questions. ---
**Author:** ![MeDrewNotYou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@MeDrewNotYou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeDrewNotYou)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-mccain-and-peter-king-can-go-to-hell/538308/49 "2010-05-05T23:09:47Z")
[Here’s some more outrage, courtesy of just Lieberman this time.](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/how_liebermans_citizen-strippi.html) Greg Sargent contacted Lieberman’s office, so what he says about the proposal is probably pretty accurate. This paragraph was particularly disturbing: [QUOTE=Greg Sargent] Second, Lieberman’s office has clarified to me how the law would work: It would empower the State Department to conclude – on its own – that Americans are conspiring with terror groups and should be stripped of their citizenship. [/QUOTE] I find it very disturbing that one could be stripped of citizenship and their rights for any reason whatsoever. But merely being _suspected_ of involvement with a group being reason enough is mind boggling. It makes for a very frightening precedent. More than that, this applies to people we haven’t even proven the guilt of. Kinda just throws the presumption of innocence out the window. > [@Rysto](#): > > It sounds to me that **Bricker** is saying that if the police violate Miranda and ask questions before Mirandizing the suspect, they can’t immediately Mirandize him and question him, and have the questions after the Miranda warning be admissible. There must be some kind of “cooling-off” period between the Miranda violation and the Miranda warning being given. > > However, the cooling-off period does apply to the “immediate public safety” Miranda exception. The police may ask questions related to public safety without a Miranda warning, Mirandize the suspect and then ask questions. That seems to make sense. I’m curious about the facts of the case cited to see how this came up, but I can imagine a circumstance where “cooling-off” would be required. ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-mccain-and-peter-king-can-go-to-hell/538308/50 "2010-05-06T02:19:30Z")
Since when is US citizenship something that the government can take away? Fuck you, Deputy Dawg. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-mccain-and-peter-king-can-go-to-hell/538308/51 "2010-05-06T02:37:48Z")
> [@Frostillicus](#): > > Since when is US citizenship something that the government can take away? Fuck you, Deputy Dawg. No, fuck **you** would-be terrorist bomber. Fuck you and your Miranda rights. You gave them up when you tried to kill a bunch of innocent people with your erstwhile fertilizer-laden SUV. Seriously, fuck you and I hope that you are tortured and die as a result of it. What if his bomb plans went off like he wanted and killed hundreds of people? If his plans weren’t so fucking stupid and they went off as he wanted would we be having this same conversation? Fuck that guy. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-mccain-and-peter-king-can-go-to-hell/538308/52 "2010-05-06T02:38:57Z")
> [@MeDrewNotYou](#): > > [Here’s some more outrage, courtesy of just Lieberman this time.](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/how_liebermans_citizen-strippi.html) Greg Sargent contacted Lieberman’s office, so what he says about the proposal is probably pretty accurate. This paragraph was particularly disturbing: Awesome! The Dems should let this pass and then promptly strip Lieberman, McCain, Palin, Limbaugh, Cheney, and Coulter’s citzenships. Then put them in Camp X and waterboard 'em. Karma’s a bitch, baby. Edited to add: FoieGrasIsEvil, wow. You just don’t get the whole concept behind rule of law do you? As my above post should point out, be careful what powers you give government, they might be used against _you_, you fucking idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-mccain-and-peter-king-can-go-to-hell/538308/53 "2010-05-06T03:18:22Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > No, fuck you [alleged] would-be terrorist bomber. Fuck you and your Miranda rights. You gave them up when you [allegedly] tried to kill a bunch of innocent people with your erstwhile fertilizer-laden SUV. Your diatribe reads a little differently when you throw the presumption of innocence in there. It’s not that we can’t rationally believe, on the available evidence, that this guy is guilty of a heinous crime and feel angry at what he evidently tried to do. But getting carried away by that anger, to the extent of no longer caring whether or not an accused person receives due process of law, is not a good idea. > [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > Seriously, fuck you and I hope that you are tortured and die as a result of it. Yeah, because that’s so good for our international reputation, so healthy for our society as a whole, and so effective at dissuading angry people from engaging in terrorist activities against us. Should we really prioritize our violent revenge fantasies above our fundamental principles as a nation and our own best interests? If this Pit thread were specifically for expressing violent revenge fantasies about terrorists just as a sort of personal emotional catharsis, I wouldn’t be in here pissing on anybody’s picnic. But AFAICT this is mostly a serious discussion about how we should **deliberately and officially choose** to treat suspects accused of terrorism. It does kind of worry me to see anybody saying “Fuck your rights and I hope you are tortured” in dead earnest in such a context. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-mccain-and-peter-king-can-go-to-hell/538308/54 "2010-05-06T03:26:36Z")
> [@Frostillicus](#): > > Since when is US citizenship something that the government can take away? Always. If the President wanted he could declare you an “enemy combatant” and throw you in a navy brig. You’d probably get out after 3 or 4 years though. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-mccain-and-peter-king-can-go-to-hell/538308/55 "2010-05-06T04:23:56Z")
What’s the big deal if we torture or kill some innocents in the pursuit of the guilty? Innocent people die every day and no one cares. All we have to do is not give a fuck, and Americans are pretty fucking good at that if they set their minds to it. If there’s a theme to the 21st Century, it’s “Fuck individual rights!” ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-mccain-and-peter-king-can-go-to-hell/538308/56 "2010-05-06T09:19:00Z")
Guilty people don’t deserve rights or a defense or evidence or fair trials or a presumption of innocence. They’re _guilty_! Now if only we had some system for determining whether people are guilty or not… ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-mccain-and-peter-king-can-go-to-hell/538308/57 "2010-05-06T11:10:12Z")
From what I’ve read, the guy admitted to the crime, confessed. Aaaaaand, sorry about that late-night, “shouldn’t have but I did anyway” rant…DWP… ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-mccain-and-peter-king-can-go-to-hell/538308/58 "2010-05-06T13:01:54Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > No, fuck **you** would-be terrorist bomber. Fuck you and your Miranda rights. You gave them up when you tried to kill a bunch of innocent people with your erstwhile fertilizer-laden SUV. Seriously, fuck you and I hope that you are tortured and die as a result of it. > > What if his bomb plans went off like he wanted and killed hundreds of people? If they support torture, good riddance. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-mccain-and-peter-king-can-go-to-hell/538308/59 "2010-05-06T13:14:04Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > From what I’ve read, the guy admitted to the crime, confessed. > > Aaaaaand, sorry about that late-night, “shouldn’t have but I did anyway” rant…DWP… And if they hadn’t mirandized him, that confession would have been unusable in court. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-mccain-and-peter-king-can-go-to-hell/538308/60 "2010-05-06T13:48:07Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Your diatribe reads a little differently when you throw the presumption of innocence in there. > > It’s not that we can’t rationally believe, on the available evidence, that this guy is guilty of a heinous crime and feel angry at what he evidently tried to do. But getting carried away by that anger, to the extent of no longer caring whether or not an accused person receives due process of law, is not a good idea. That’s the key to this issue. People like McCain either do not understand, or are pandering to the ignorant. They do not see these civil rights as a protection for those wrongfully accused, they see it as mercy for the guilty. Arrest equals guilt in their minds, they see no reasonable probably that innocent people might get arrested. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-mccain-and-peter-king-can-go-to-hell/538308.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-mccain-and-peter-king-can-go-to-hell/538308.md?page=4)