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.
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 otherdetails, 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…?
I wonder what Jon Stewart’s numbers are like…
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.
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:
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.
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?
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.
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:
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.
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.
Here’s some more outrage, courtesy of just Lieberman this time. Greg Sargent contacted Lieberman’s office, so what he says about the proposal is probably pretty accurate. This paragraph was particularly disturbing:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!”
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…
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…
If they support torture, good riddance.
And if they hadn’t mirandized him, that confession would have been unusable in court.
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.