Nigerian Terror Suspect Is Talking, Officials Say - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

PatsWSB47 · 02-03-2010, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackBauer

And why not?

Security reasons. Why show your hand to the enemy? Let them feel safe. If we are tipping them off to get them to make a move then why wait a month? They could have leaked false info that he was singing a long time ago. The timing is curious but I'm willing to consider that the leaking of this not political.

Are you at least honest enough to acknowledege that it might be?

JackBauer · 02-03-2010, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsSB42

Security reasons. Why show your hand to the enemy? Let them feel safe. If we are tipping them off to get them to make a move then why wait a month? They could have leaked false info that he was singing a long time ago. The timing is curious but I'm willing to consider that the leaking of this not political.

Are you at least honest enough to acknowledege that it might be?

1.) To assume that this is somehow actionable to "the enemy" is giving them far less credit than they deserve. I think it's a safe and given assumption that anyone who falls into enemy hands can't be trusted not proffer any information they may possess.

2.) Of course it's a political pushback on the part of the administration and the FBI. A pushback against the shameless demagoguery on this issue emanating largely from the Republican party.

PatsWSB47 · 02-03-2010, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackBauer

1.) To assume that this is somehow actionable to "the enemy" is giving them far less credit than they deserve. I think it's a safe and given assumption that anyone who falls into enemy hands can't be trusted not proffer any information they may possess.

2.) Of course it's a political pushback on the part of the administration and the FBI. A pushback against the shameless demagoguery on this issue emanating largely from the Republican party.

Well thanks for rewriting the books for law enforcement and spying. Cops tell suspects they’ve been ratted on all the time when they haven’t. They throw out information hoping unknown bad guys hear it so that they may react, get sloppy and get caught. A timed leak of true or false information is done all the time in the espionage game isn’t it? Have they been wasting their time all these years? Who’s not getting enough credit again?

There is a lot of demagoguery going on by politicians from all sides but at the same time there are many security experts that have legitimate arguments that conclude that a terror suspect being questioned with his lawyer present isn't the most effective way to get valuable information. That's not shameful.

JackBauer · 02-03-2010, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsSB42

Well thanks for rewriting the books for law enforcement and spying.

I'm not rewriting anything. Apparently you think our enemies shape their tactics by watching re-runs of Law and Order.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsSB42

Cops tell suspects they’ve been ratted on all the time when they haven’t. They throw out information hoping unknown bad guys hear it so that they may react, get sloppy and get caught. A timed leak of true or false information is done all the time in the espionage game isn’t it? Have they been wasting their time all these years? Who’s not getting enough credit again?

I have no idea what you're attempting to say here, or how it's germane to the issue at hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsSB42

There is a lot of demagoguery going on by politicians from all sides but at the same time there are many security experts that have legitimate arguments that conclude that a terror suspect being questioned with his lawyer present isn't the most effective way to get valuable information. That's not shameful.

I'm hate to break it to you, but in this instance, as with many others that have been prosecuted similarly, their arguments are irrelevant. Now if you're talking about re-writing the Constitution, which dictates how these suspects are handled, you'd need to contact your elected Representatives to get that ball in motion.

PatsWSB47 · 02-03-2010, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackBauer

I'm not rewriting anything. Apparently you think our enemies shape their tactics by watching re-runs of Law and Order.

Don't be naive

Quote:

I have no idea what you're attempting to say here, or how it's germane to the issue at hand.

You're the one that believes that leaking out that he's talking can't be actionable by the enemy because they're to smart to be influenced by that information. I'm simply pointing out that the the tactic has been used over and over again

Quote:

I'm hate to break it to you, but in this instance, as with many others that have been prosecuted similarly, their arguments are irrelevant. Now if you're talking about re-writing the Constitution, which dictates how these suspects are handled, you'd need to contact your elected Representatives to get that ball in motion.

Don't be to sure that the policies won't be changed. These suspects our lucky they are classified this way. It's not too far of a stretch to see that change if we are hit enough times that they will be classified differently as enemies on a battlefield or whatever way they need to be so that they then can't get lawyered up.

***IcyPatriot*** · 02-03-2010, 04:24 PM

If he's talking while he's in the shower ... that is wrong ... way wrong.

Hopefully he is talking without water being present ... talking with wet hair is immoral.

PatsFanInVa · 02-03-2010, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IcyPatriot

If he's talking while he's in the shower ... that is wrong ... way wrong.

Hopefully he is talking without water being present ... talking with wet hair is immoral.

Unless by "in the shower" you mean "strapped to a board", and by "wet hair" you mean "drowning", in which case it's patriotic.

***patsfan13*** · 02-03-2010, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackBauer

Because it's laughably transparent when the same people who had no problem whatsoever when this was done by Bush suddenly find themselves pillorying Obama for following in his stead.

Sorry, but no one is buying it, nor your laughable implication that Obama's definition of "change" consists of doing "exactly the opposite of Bush on every single solitary issue."

Where did anyone say Bush was right in reading Reid his Miranda rights?

Where did anyone say it was a good idea to have Reid's trial in Federal Court?

I would however point out there were no structures for military tribunals at that point. But don't let facts stnad in the way of you little straw man..

Patsfanin Philly · 02-03-2010, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackBauer

So much for intellectual honesty.

You mean like when President Obama laughed off complaints during the campaign that he would give terrorists Miranda rights?????

Flashback: Obama Said Terrorists Shouldn't Get Miranda Rights | The Weekly Standard
(Go to the 2:00 mark for a laughed off comment that he would give terrorists Miranda rights)
He brings up a GOP Convention line about Miranda warnings ... but simply responds with a theatrical smirk.
>>>>>From there, he proceeds to mock the federal government for failing to catch Bin Laden (not that that's on Obama's front burner anymore), and then discusses the need for terrorist detainees to be allowed to file habeas petitions in federal courts. The Miranda issue, however, is simply laughed aside, as if it was preposterous to even raise the subject.
And two months after his Inauguration, President Obama reiterated, "Now, do these folks deserve miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not."<<<<<<

***DarrylS*** · 02-04-2010, 03:26 AM

Interesting comments from Holder to McConnell.. which articulates that the current policy is consistent with Obama's predecessor...

Holder To GOP: We're Simply Doing What Bush Did | TPMMuckraker

Quote:

Some have argued that had Abdulmutallab been declared an enemy combatant, the government could have held him indefinitely without providing him access to an attorney. But the government's legal authority todo so is far from clear. In fact, when the Bush administration attempted to deny Jose Padilla access to an attorney, a federal judge in New York rejected that position, ruling that Padilla must be allowed to meet with his lawyer. Notably, the judge in that case was Michael Mukasey, my predecessor as Attorney General. In fact, there is no court-approved system currently in place in which suspected terrorists captured inside the United States can be detained and held without access to an attorney; nor is there any known mechanism to persuade an uncooperative individual to talk to the government that has been proven more effective than the criminal justice system.