Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: F.B.I. Memorandum

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    dimensionally transcendental
    Last Seen
    08-15-11 @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,153

    F.B.I. Memorandum

    Essentially, the Obama administration is saying that terror suspects should be given Miranda warnings... unless they decide they shouldn't.

    Kind of like they did with the lobbyists... no lobbyists will work for the Obama administration... unless the administration decides they should.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/us...html?src=twrhp
    U.S. Department of Justice

    Federal Bureau of Investigation

    October 21, 2010

    Custodial Interrogation for Public Safety

    and Intelligence-Gathering Purposes of Operational

    Terrorists Inside the United States [1]

    Identifying and apprehending suspected terrorists, interrogating them to obtained intelligence about terrorist activities and impending terrorist attacks, and lawfully detaining them so that they do not pose a continuing threat to our communities are critical to protecting the American people. The Department of Justice and the FBI believe that we can maximize our ability to accomplish these objectives by continuing to adhere to FBI policy regarding the use of Miranda warnings for custodial interrogation of operational terrorists [2] who are arrested inside the United States:

    1. If applicable, agents should ask any and all questions that are reasonably prompted by an immediate concern for the safety of the public or the arresting agents without advising the arrestee of his Miranda rights. [3]

    2. After all applicable public safety questions have been exhausted, agents should advise the arrestee of his Miranda rights and seek a waiver of those rights before any further interrogation occurs, absent exceptional circumstances described below.

    3. There may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government's interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation. [4] In these instances, agents should seek SAC approval to proceed with unwarned interrogation after the public safety questioning is concluded. Whenever feasible, the SAC will consult with FBI-HQ (including OGC) and Department of Justice attorneys before granting approval. Presentment of an arrestee may not be delayed simply to continue the interrogation, unless the defendant has timely waived prompt presentment.

    The determination whether particular unwarned questions are justified on public safety grounds must always be made on a case-by-case basis based on all the facts and circumstances. In light of the magnitude and complexity of the threat often posed by terrorist organizations, particularly international terrorist organizations, and the nature of their attacks, the circumstances surrounding an arrest of an operational terrorist may warrant significantly more extensive public safety interrogation without Miranda warnings than would be permissible in an ordinary criminal case. Depending on the facts, such interrogation might include, for example, questions about possible impending or coordinated terrorist attacks; the location, nature and threat posed by weapons that might post an imminent danger to the public; and the identities, locations, and activities or intentions of accomplices who may be plotting additional imminent attacks.

    As noted above, if there is time to consult with FBI-HQ (including OGC) and Department of Justice attorneys regarding the interrogation strategy to be followed prior to reading the defendant his Miranda rights, the field office should endeavor to do so. Nevertheless, the agents on the scene who are interacting with the arrestee are in the best position to assess what questions are necessary to secure their safety and the safety of the public, and how long the post-arrest interview can practically be delayed while interrogation strategy is being discussed.

    [1] This guidance applies only to arrestees who have not been indicted and who are not known to be represented by an attorney. For policy on interrogation of indicted defendants, see Legal Handbook for Special Agents (LHBSA) Section 7-3.2 For policy on contact with represented persons, see LHBSA Sections 7-4.1 and 8-3.2.2.

    [2] For these purposes, an operational terrorist is an arrestee who is reasonably believed to be either a high-level member of an international terrorist group; or an operative who has personally conducted or attempted to conduct a terrorist operation that involved risk to life; or an individual knowledgeable about operational details of a pending terrorist operation.

    [3] The Supreme Court held in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984), that if law enforcement officials engage in custodial interrogation of an individual that is "reasonable prompted by a concern for the public safety," any statements the individual provides in the course of such interrogation shall not be inadmissible in any criminal proceeding on the basis that the warnings described in Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966), were not provided. The court noted that this exception to the Miranda rule is a narrow one and that "in each case it will be circumscribed by the [public safety] exigency which justifies it." 467 U.S. at 657.

    [4]The Supreme Court has strongly suggested that an arrestee's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is not violated at the time a statement is taken without Miranda warnings, but instead may be violated only if and when the government introduces an unwarned statement in a criminal proceeding against the defendant. See Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 769 (2003) (plurality op.); id. at 789 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); cf. also id. at 778-79 (Souter, J., concurring in the judgment); see also United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630, 641 (2004) (plurality opinion) ("[V]iolations [of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination] occur, if at all, only upon the admission of unwarned statements into evidence at trial."); United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 264 (1990) ("[A] violation [of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination] occurs only at trial.")

  2. #2
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,803

    Re: F.B.I. Memorandum

    Weren't conservatives freaking out that Underwear Bomber was even given a miranda warning?

    Look. It's the ****ing law. They have to do it. Then we had this "exception" added for "immediate danger" or "imminent threat" stuff, and this happened well before Obama took office.

    So, the way I see it, this is how things were already being done but somehow now that's an issue for you?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  3. #3
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: F.B.I. Memorandum

    Quote Originally Posted by Whovian View Post
    Essentially, the Obama administration is saying that terror suspects should be given Miranda warnings... unless they decide they shouldn't.

    Kind of like they did with the lobbyists... no lobbyists will work for the Obama administration... unless the administration decides they should.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/us...html?src=twrhp
    is there a point to this post? what do you disagree with in the memorandum?

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  4. #4
    Student Marshabar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    11-09-13 @ 10:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    293

    Re: F.B.I. Memorandum

    From situational ethics to situational reality. Whatever works at the time, dude! If you're a liberal that is.

  5. #5
    King of Videos
    dirtpoorchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    WA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,022

    Re: F.B.I. Memorandum

    To me it reads an awful lot like: "A mechanism to also hold the innocent until they comply to self-defamation in order to safeguard the reputation of whoever is doing this."
    I'm Finding it Harder to be a Gentleman, White Stripes ~ "You think I care about me and only me. When every girl needs help climbing up a tree."

  6. #6
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: F.B.I. Memorandum

    Quote Originally Posted by dirtpoorchris View Post
    To me it reads an awful lot like: "A mechanism to also hold the innocent until they comply to self-defamation in order to safeguard the reputation of whoever is doing this."
    what you infer from it is not how it reads. it makes sense to me.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    dimensionally transcendental
    Last Seen
    08-15-11 @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,153

    Re: F.B.I. Memorandum

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    what you infer from it is not how it reads. it makes sense to me.
    of course it does.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    dimensionally transcendental
    Last Seen
    08-15-11 @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,153

    Re: F.B.I. Memorandum

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Weren't conservatives freaking out that Underwear Bomber was even given a miranda warning?

    Look. It's the ****ing law. They have to do it. Then we had this "exception" added for "immediate danger" or "imminent threat" stuff, and this happened well before Obama took office.

    So, the way I see it, this is how things were already being done but somehow now that's an issue for you?
    Terrorists are NOT civilians, worthy of Miranda. They are enemy combatants. No Miranda.

  9. #9
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,749

    Re: F.B.I. Memorandum

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshabar View Post
    From situational ethics to situational reality. Whatever works at the time, dude! If you're a liberal that is.
    Kind of like the Bush speeches, where he supported something, but worked hard to undermine it and kill it.

    Face it. It isn't just the Liberals who do crap like this. It happens on both sides of the aisle. I gave Bush hell over it, and now I am giving Obama hell over it.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  10. #10
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,803

    Re: F.B.I. Memorandum

    Quote Originally Posted by Whovian View Post
    Terrorists are NOT civilians, worthy of Miranda. They are enemy combatants. No Miranda.
    Call me weird, but I think rights should apply to everyone or they shouldn't be called rights. If they are in the custody of civilian law enforcement they should be treated like civilians.

    So I take it now that you're in support of "the Obama administration's" treatment of these guys? I mean, since they went and found a workaround for the Miranda warning.

    (P.S. Miranda doesn't actually confer rights. You already have those rights. Miranda just informs you of such)
    Last edited by Deuce; 03-25-11 at 10:40 PM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •