ST Alpha - "moose - exactly. Miranda doesn't mean "questions stop" or no criminal investigation could ever go forth. -- nm" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 155

moose - exactly. Miranda doesn't mean "questions stop" or no criminal investigation could ever go forth. -- nm

Posted by Reagen (aka Reagen) Dec 31 '09, 09:49

(No message)

Responses:

Questions stop until a lawyer is present. Also, I don't know this definitively, but I would assume that there's some limitations in place that... - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:00 35
- You have the right to remain silent does not mean that officers have the duty to stop asking questions. -- nm - Beryllium Dec 31, 10:18 5
  - (And I absolutely think that the underwear bomber should be treated as an ordinary criminal - with one exception) - Beryllium Dec 31, 10:24 3
    - Basically every interrogation expert I've heard from says that jack bauer's style is a great way to get quick, worthless intel. -- nm - Reagen Dec 31, 10:25 2
      - Ditto. Fun, though. -- nm - Beryllium Dec 31, 10:30
      - an oldie, but a goodie. -- (link) - mafic Dec 31, 10:28
  - Interesting article from U Pitt. "The constitutional limitations imposed on police interrogators vary depending on the purpose for which - loosilu Dec 31, 10:23
- but also as I understand it, those rights exist whether you've been read them or not. So if they actually want to do anything substantial, they have - Reagen Dec 31, 10:05 1
  - Right. I'm not really being clear here. It's just the act of treating it as a common criminal act and not as a enemy of the state at war. -- nm - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:11
- Plus, the terrorist group claimed responsiblity. There's no one here that believes he acted alone, right? -- nm - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:03 26
  - I don't see how that's relevant. -- nm - Reagen Dec 31, 10:05 25
    - Because of the legal ramifications of "enemy combatants", no? - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:10 24
      - just because AQ claims responsibility doesn't mean they're telling the truth. -- nm - loosilu Dec 31, 10:17 7
        
        Wanna put odds on it? Yes, there's a chance that they weren't, but there was also a chance on 9/11 that they didn't do it either, but.... - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:20 6
        
        and no, I don't think we can assume it's AQ at this point. -- nm - loosilu Dec 31, 10:25
        
        Right, but it can't be used as any kind of evidence, can it? -- nm - loosilu Dec 31, 10:24
        
        there's a world of difference between (at least) 19 men acting in concert, and one man's failed attack. -- nm - mafic Dec 31, 10:24 3
        
        Does AQ have a history of claiming attacks that aren't theirs? I haven't heard much of one. - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:29 2
        
        I'm not saying it's not AQ. just that because AQ might be involved doesn't mean that it's a nefarious terrorist masterstroke. -- nm - mafic Dec 31, 10:50 1
        
        I'm not saying Blofled's stroking his cat while saying, "Release the Fruit of the Loom bomber on them," but if AQ's involved then by default, it's... - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:55
      - the relevant thing here to me is what is no Mirandizing him going to do? He's going to answer the question or he's not. - Reagen Dec 31, 10:12 15
        
        I hate that we have to protect people against their own idiocy, but I accept it as necessary. - mafic Dec 31, 10:19 9
        
        No one disputes that he could sit there mum and that's that. But do you really believe that a military interrogater wouldn't have a better chance.... - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:22 8
        
        such as...? -- nm - Reagen Dec 31, 10:23 7
        
        Here's the list on Wiki as pulled from the field manual: -- (link) - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:37 2
        
        other than the last two, I can't see why any of those couldn't be used in normal interrogation. - Reagen Dec 31, 10:40 1 1
        
        At least half the list is rendered ineffective with a lawyer present. At least half. -- nm - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:43
        
        well, there's the hot-coat-hanger-to-the-testes... i think that one's still legal. -- nm - TFox Dec 31, 10:24 3
        
        Interrogating someone in the middle of the night just 'cause. I can't imagine the FBI can do that regularly. -- nm - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:31 2
        
        Why not? FBI agents only work 8-5? - Will Hunting Dec 31, 10:34 1
        
        I'm thinking the lawyer present aspect probably has rules to prevent "abuse" by the legal agency. Could be wrong. - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:35
        
        You treat him like a criminal, provide a lawyer, and the odds of getting information on the wider organization greatly diminishes. - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:15 4
        
        or maybe his lawyer advises him to spill his guts for a better deal. - Reagen Dec 31, 10:17
        
        PS: There's no guarantee that he'll ever talk, but the chances are substantially better. -- nm - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:16 2
        
        I seriously don't understand how. *are* we talking about torture here? -- nm - Reagen Dec 31, 10:18 1
        
        There's plenty of legal and accepted techiniques that can/are used outside of torture. The time of day when the interrogation takes place for example -- nm - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:25
It means the planet where the Alliance created Reavers. -- nm - Shaun Dec 31, 09:51

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.