No. That poster was commenting on a specific procedure. The tradeoffs are worth it, because it might save lives. There is no reason to extrapolate that beyond the specific procedure being discussed.
Bringing up torture is a strawman, and you also took his comment out of context. Two strikes. One more, and you’re out.
Further:
If I say “traffic lights are a restriction on our freedom [they are, no doubt] but they are worth it because they save lives”, would you come along as say: “So, torture is OK?”
That would be absurd. As is the case here.
It was put forth that the “public safety” exception was worth it because it saves lives. “Saving lives” was not thrown out there as a general principle, meant to justify anything. No on said “anything is worth it, if it saves lives”. But you chose to read the post that way, ignoring the context and throwing in a strawman.
You seem to be inferring that the original assertion was something like, “Anything that saves lives is worth it.” That’s not a reasonable inference. “If we do X, sure there’s a potential downside, but if doing X saves lives, then it’s worth it” does not in any way imply that “anything that saves lives is worth it.” It means that X is worth its associated risks, and nothing more than that.
I see on preview that John already said as much.
This is what I meant.
“Beltway Sniper” John Allen Muhammad was convicted under a terrorism law.
You all are over-thinking this Miranda thing… it’s just the Obama Admin wanting to appear tough on crime while they push gun control.
You forgot to add a winky smiley to the end of that. Well, either that or you’re a nut case.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
The general commentary I have seen has suggested 48 hours. Whether the clock starts at the point he was detained or the clock starts when he recovers sufficiently to be questioned, I have not heard.
I found and read this thread because a FB friend and I got into a debate about this. His initial post was that people were cheering for martial law. He eventually conceeded that it wasn’t called martial law, but essentially was.
Was anybody arrested or charged with anything for going outside or opening their business on that day? Did anybody get their house searched unwillingly?
Wait. Were people ordered inside or was thart just an advisory?
LEFT WING - Domestic terrorist group
1973-75 Symbionese Liberation Army (complete with a HUGE shoot-out with LAPD)
Patty Hearst was my doppelganger at the time & I remember this episode very well.
There have been more than 1 organized groups that attacked abortion clinics. Those are obviously “right wing domestic terrorist attacks” unless we’re only talking about totally random targets as “terrorism.” Similarly, are you excluding when groups of Christians attack gay people?
Technically nobody was ordered to stay inside, but when men in black armored combat gear are knocking on your door and saying, “we need you to stay off the streets” it can certainly come across as one.
I can assure you as someone who was nearby, most people took it as more than just an advisory and it was truly astonishing how few people ventured outdoors.
Even in blizzards or hurricanes when the state declares a state of emergency and tells everyone to stay inside, there always a few idiots who head out and decide to fuck around.
Frankly, I was really disturbed.
I’m old enough to remember the Oklahoma City bombing and the manhunt for the perpetrators which despite being far deadlier didn’t involve locking down an entire city.
Well, McVeigh was not picked up after he and Nichls shot a policeman, carjacked an SUV, got into a running firefight with the police, including having them throw bombs from their vehicle, with McVeigh disappearing into a neighborhood after abandoning Nichols’s body in the street.
There was no lock down on the day of the bombing, only after the actual gunfight.
There is a good chance investigators and prosecutors may not be hamstrung
by time limits on the Miranda exception. See link:
NTY (2/20/13): Legal Questions Riddle Boston Marathon Case
(from link):
So even the ACLU may be partially on board.
One helpful aspect of the matter is that there is likely to be enough evidence to convict
without any testimony from Tsarnaev.
On the run or in custody and thus unable to plant more devices since three days ago. Still no more explosions. Are we allowing for the possibility of bombs on eighteen-year timers? When is the reasonable person’s expiration date on taking “there could be more bombs!” as the reason to suspend civil liberties?
I would say that as soon as we can be reasonably sure that there aren’t other bombers out there. We don’t know that these guys were working alone. Plus, the 19-year-old might still be medicated and unable to answer questions fully. At any rate, I have no problem letting the clock run longer.
This guy is toast, Miranda or no Miranda. And if there are no other bombs, then the info they get from him related to other bombs will be zilch, and any info they get about non-public safety issues will not be admissible in court.
Since there have been no further incidents, or threats of incidents, I’d say as soon as he recovers enough.
I’m not saying I agree with their decision to use the public safety exception, but there are multiple methods of detonating IEDs without a timer, the most well-known being mobile phones.