View Single Post
Old
04-26-2013, 01:35 AM
  #802
Son of Marshmont
Classless Moose
 
Son of Marshmont's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: West Meff
Country: United States
Posts: 7,902
vCash: 2038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely08 View Post
Well, that's not likely now. B/c now he can use information he may otherwise have given up, had they been permitted more time to interrogate him, thus pleading down from the death penalty.
Entirely possible, and if I were a wagering person I'd say most likely. Philosophically I'm not sure how I feel about this, but that discussion is best left for another forum far, far from here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely08 View Post
Pretty sure they have him cold w/o any additional information from himself. Nor would any information they obtained be admissible previous to him being mirandized (just assuming here). Point was; determine immediate danger - additional bombs or accomplices at large, get intel on anyone else involved directly or indirectly, find out who/what his brother was associating with, how they were radicalized, other contacts, training, etc etc.

e.g. This Misha character, if real, he can get outta town now before anyone can ID him. They have no way of corroborating, or fact checking, anything he's said thus far.
I don't doubt that there's enough physical evidence for a conviction on the federal charges and I think they've got him dead to rights. As for the info obtained prior to being Mirandized possibly regarding other accomplices or plots, if it's not admissible against S2, I'd worry about it being legally viable to use in obtaining search warrants and going forward against any further plots. Now, my last con law classes were in undergrad so I'm not at all fresh on search and seizure so I'd have to leave that to the experts. I know the threshold for probable cause is lower than it is when determining information admissible at a trial, but it comes with it's variances. I do know that the US District Court of Massachusetts has a reputation of following the "letter of the law" down to the last dotted "i."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely08 View Post
You're right, they had to do what was within the law once it was decided he wasn't going to be classified as an enemy combatant. I'm of the opinion they have to draft federal legislation that gives investigators what they need, and legally, whether it be domestic or foreign terrorism. Had this guy been in Pakistan or Afghanistan, like Jose Padilla, different story, as we're already at war. Had he been part of an active cell (i.e. London, Spain). We'd of been ****ed.
I made this point earlier in this thread....the "battlefield" has obviously taken on a new look and isn't a visible one like we're used to seeing in recent history. There needs to be pressure on this country's legislators and lawmakers to take a serious look at some of these scenarios that require us to fight a different kind of "war." Political apathy aside (and again, I'm not going to go into the politics of it because blergh) it would be helpful if the Federal Government could be a tad more proactive, as evidenced by some of the bureaucratic BS that's come to light, with the infosharing between agencies as an example. The laws that we have certainly have their place...but if there's absolutely a case to be made that they're antiquated when dealing with this new battlefield.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely08 View Post
I'm certainly not flaming you.
No, I know. That was in response to the assplod who apparently read what I wrote and assumed from those posts that I wanted the FBI to blow the case. I've nothing but the utmost respect for what you've provided us in this thread. The things I've learned from you have incredibly helpful and provided so much insight into a world that most of us have zero clue about. I tip my hat to you and the others who do the work you do.

__________________
Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing. - Ron Swanson
Son of Marshmont is offline