This. It's all media speak. Unless their contract has a few years left ala Ann Curry, then it's 'reassigned.'
You did indeed miss it. There were several people that were temporarily stopped and searched during that period of time. Including the one you mentioned.
Okay, thank you. This makes more sense, and I shall apologize for my earlier remarks. My argument goes like this then. 1. You state "they will attempt to rely on information gathered prior to providing Miranda rights." But what will they attempt? To use said information in court to convict Tsarnev of his crimes? They don't need anything from him. There's already more than enough evidence to put him away even if he said absolutely nothing, and using said information invites all sorts of legal fracas and hassling from his defense attorney to use. It would be Marcia Clark-level stupidity to use that sort of information. 2. What is troubling about this scenario if they use none of the information learned? There are very legitimate public security concerns that should be immediately addressed through questioning. Of course, if after Tsarnev has recovered, they are still using the public security exception from a month later, that may be more troubling, but the legitimacy of all of that and whether said information can be used in trial is determined by the courts, whom from my understanding are very prickly about this sort of thing. The Tsarnev case is an example of the outlier which proves the rule due to the nature of the crime, the overwhelming evidence, as well as the media frenzy surrounding it which ties into the evidence and will keep it from being forgotten in the public eye. This is not going to be some precedent to destroy Miranda as some of my more hysterical friends have proclaimed.
Why should he even bother? The picture is bigger than you could possibly imagine. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9CS7j5I6aOc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe src='http://www.video.theblaze.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=26490701&width=400&height=224&property=theblaze' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>
I was responding to this: This was a strange way of putting it. You dismiss the moon landing conspiracy, not because of the overwhelming evidence proving the landing happened, but because it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of conspiracies. I guess it's easier to spot conspiracies with that point of view.
You can't really expect anyone to listen to Glenn Beck for 17 straight minutes. Give the cliff notes version, please.
Major LOL to post #107 on the heels of #106. Just look at the first frames even. Props to Commodore for turning us into a comedy team.
From a pure broadcasting perspective, I find Beck quite enjoyable to listen to. Cliff notes: the Saudi national that was reported to be under guard at the hospital after the attack was on a terror watch list
It comes down to whether or not you put any stock into the NWO conspiracy theory, which would include false flag operations to scare the public into having their rights taken away so that the controllers can get more power, such as (potentially/possibly) in this case. I'm not telling you to believe that but basically summing it all up.
No, I actually think it happened but I'm open to the idea of a conspiracy. Like I said, Buzz Aldrin's demeanor speaks volumes to me so that lends credence to the idea that there was no conspiracy or faking in this case. And for a variety of reasons, I choose not to spend any energy on the subject.
i love when conspiracy theorists use raw data, photographs, and mainstream news coverage to perpetuate their ideas, then turn around and scream MAINSTREAM MEDIA before they call everybody else the mindless sheep... also, Reptilians oh, and RON PAUL
You're not lying....People on FB are asking the dumbest things...most of it already answered and public knowledge. It's like they look at everything but the news. You've got law enforcement, consultants, residents, inside sources, politicians, etc, confirming similar things and they still have doubts. I guess the whole country is in on the conspiracy and we jjust forgot to tell these people.
I agree that the safe harbor exception is designed to be used under very narrow exceptions, but it has become more popular the last dozen or so years. I want to keep it as narrow as possible. I don't have an issue with them questioning him without a Miranda warning if they do not rely on the information learned or the off spring of the information learned. However, Jeffrey Toobin on the night of the capture stated the prosecution intended to rely on the information learned at trial. I believe if they attempt to do so, and prevail under the 1979 case, it will be used by other courts to justify not giving Miranda rights. The way you laid out your position is logical and valid, I am just suspect be because I know the consequences or fear possible consequences.
I'm confused now...you said "you simply have to see the bigger picture" yet the only information you provided is something that you're telling me not to believe. So are you going to dance around these silly ascertains or actually tell me the bigger picture? It would be nice if you had a point that you stuck to instead of submitting a proposal and saying it might not be true...hell any hack that read any conspiracy site could say that. We all know that their crap "might" not be true (and most likely isn't)...otherwise "real" media outlets would report it with facts backing it up. Honestly, do you think that any reputable reporter would pass on cracking a huge government conspiracy if they had the chance and facts to back it? Eff no they wouldn't...that's what they do! It's silly to think that every government official, every eye witness, every law enforcement officer, and every member of the media all got together to cover up so many possible leaks/facts/inconsistencies/possible money passed under the table just to pass a law or take away a fraction of the freedom that would probably make the US a 'tad' bit more safe in the future and probably already had a decent chance to pass in the first place....even though no one is really sure which law that may be. Again...listen to how ridiculous this crap sounds.
No, I'm saying I'm not forcing you to believe anything and it's up to you. And anyone who goes against the system is silenced (fired, has a family member killed, is killed themselves, blackmailed, bribed, etc...) and yes some have tried to expose some things but have been silenced imho. Info leaks all of the time, usually on the internet and that's a big way people begin connecting dots (granted, as we all know, the internet is not always reliable). They can't control the flow of information there as they can in the mainstream sources, which is why they have to demonize the internet: Spoiler Uh, bonjour! It takes time, critical thinking, research and an unbiased mind willing to think outside of the box to get to this point, though I'm fine disagreeing with an educated opinion to the contrary.
