Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh now it's personal? I'm just talking interrogation. I'm not even talking "enhanced interrogation". I'm just talking treating him like any other criminal. If you do, you won't even be able to attempt to interrogate him (torture aside).
I would if it were intelligible. Please explain more clearly.
Okay...If you afford him "full range of rights" and he requests an attorney ("lawyers up"), you are DONE...period. I assume you know this. You CAN'T question him any further, attempt to try to get ANY information, catch him in a provable lie, go back at him, catch him slipping up etc., etc., etc. like normal interrogations where someone doesn't lawyer up. So...is giving a guy like this (a terrorist..given) a full range of rights, what we should be doing given the stakes involved (possibly multiple planned mass murders)? Oh...by a person who qualifies as a terrorist by definition.
Say what? What? If you're referring to the "personal", it was you calling me "cowboy". I'm just asking a question. You seem to be very defensive all of the sudden for some reason.
In this situation I would first attempt to interrogate him without advising him of his right to an attorney or to remain silent. Nothing illegal about that. That could occur in a kidnapping case.
In this situation I would first attempt to interrogate him without advising him of his right to an attorney or to remain silent. Nothing illegal about that. That could occur in a kidnapping case.
Uh...yeah there is in this situation. He would be in custody which triggers Miranda.
Apologies for the tone and the "cowboy". I'm enjoying the give and take.
No problem. How about the intelligible? j/k. I enjoy hearing other opinions. I'm just trying to throw a scenario out there that someone has to deal with (possibly far fetched with the nuke thing...at least I hope) and have them explain what they would do under "full rights". In this case, you are still dealing with a terrorist who may have information on more attempts of mass murder by other terrorists.
No. If you knew more about interrogation law you'd know that wasn't necessariy true. I'll let you do a little research to learn why that's so, rather than just give you the answer. "Teach a man to fish". Don't worry most people don't know this because a scenario like yours rarely presents itself, thank goodness.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. I enjoy hearing other opinions. I'm just trying to throw a scenario out there that someone has to deal with (possibly far fetched with the nuke thing...at least I hope) and have them explain what they would do under "full rights". In this case, you are still dealing with a terrorist who may have information on more attempts of mass murder by other terrorists.
