Jamesb101.com

commentary on Politics and a little bit of everything else

The Joint FBI/NYPD Task Force arrests two going to start a jihad abroad at JFK Airport….

The FBI/NYPD Joint Terrorist Task Force members placed two men under arrest as they tried to leave the US from New York’s JFK Airport last night…..

Mohamed Mahmoud Alessa, 20, of North Bergen, New Jersey, and Carlos Eduardo Almonte, 24, of Elmwood Park, New Jersey where detained just before boarding two separate flights out the country…The Task Force began investigating the two after friends and family members of the two became concerned with the two’s interest in violence and terrorism…..

The FBI and New Jersey police conducted evidence securing raids at their homes in New Jersey after the two where arrested…..

Alleged plotter: "I wanna, like, be the world's known terrorist."



The FBI received a tip regarding the men’s activities in October 2006, according to the U.S. Attorney’s office in New Jersey.

The tip, from someone who knew the men, said, “Every time they access the Internet all they look for is all those terrorist videos. … They keep saying that Americans are their enemies, that everybody other than Islamic followers are their enemies … and they all must be killed.”

As part of the investigation, an undercover officer with the New York Police Department’s intelligence unit “recorded numerous meetings and conversation” with the two men, prosecutors said.

During those meetings, they discussed a plan under which they would save thousands of dollars and physically condition themselves through paintball and other training, then acquire military gear and apparel for use overseas, and buy plane tickets to Egypt with the intent to travel to Somalia.

“The defendants also discussed their obligation to wage violent jihad and at times expressed a willingness to commit acts of violence in the United States,” prosecutors said…..

More……..

Advertisements

June 6, 2010 Posted by | Breaking News, Crime, Government, Law, Media, Men, PoliticalDog Calls, September 11, Travel, Updates | , , , , , | 2 Comments

Miranda Warning and Terrorist arrests……..

For as long as I can remember people arrested in America get their Miranda warning recited to them…

Police officers and Fed’s both have the same basic rule to follow….

As soon as possible

Read them their rights……

After  9/11 a lot of people kinda got pissed off and decided to heck with their rights……

But there’s s problem with that…

When the Fed’s get to court…..The first thing the defense attorney is gonna go after is all the information obtained BEFORE said subject was read his/her rights….

Now nobody wants the bad guy/girl to lawyer up…..

But that is THEIR right if we’re trying them in a civilian court…..

I believe the government has the right to find out if the officers or anyone else is in immediate danger BEFORE giving an Miranda warning to a bad guy….

But that has a time line attached to it…

When we get down to the intelligence vs criminal prosecution argumenet….I want the intell..that’s hands down..

But in those cases……the governemenet can’t have it both ways….

Get the information…..

Then cut the deal…..

Don’t give away the process…

People are presumed innocent before convinced by a court of law

Right?

And they have the right against self incrimination…..

Right?

Here’s a Op Ed piece from the New York Times on the issue……

For nearly nine years, the threat of international terrorism has fueled a government jackhammer, cutting away at long-established protections of civil liberties. It has been used to justify warrantless wiretapping, an expansion of the state secrets privilege in federal lawsuits, the use of torture, and the indefinite detention of people labeled enemy combatants. None of these actions were necessary to fight terrorism, and neither is a dubious Obama administration proposal to loosen the Miranda rules when questioning terror suspects and to delay presenting suspects to a judge.

A change to a fundamental constitutional protection like Miranda should not be tossed out on a Sunday talk show with few details and a gauzy justification. If Attorney General Eric Holder really wants to change the rules, he owes the public a much better explanation.

At the most basic level, it is not even clear that the warning requirement can be changed, except from the bench. The Miranda warning was the creation of the Supreme Court as a way of enforcing the Fifth Amendment. Since 1966, it has reduced coerced confessions and reminded suspects that they have legal rights.

The Rehnquist court warned against meddling with the rule in a 2000 decision forbidding Congress to overrule the warnings to suspects, which over the decades became an ingrained law enforcement practice.

In 1984, the court itself added a “public safety” exception to Miranda. If there is an overriding threat to public safety and officers need information from a suspect to deal with it, the court said,the officers can get that information before administering the Miranda warnings and still use it in court. We disagreed with that decision, but in the years since, the exception has become a useful tool to deal with imminent threats.

The question now is whether the exception needs to be enlarged to deal with the threat of terrorism. Clearly an unexploded bomb or a terror conspiracy would constitute a safety threat under the existing rule. But must investigators “Mirandize” a suspect before asking about his financing sources, his experience at overseas training camps, his methods of communication? In a world that is differently dangerous than it was in 1984, these seem to fit logically under the existing exception, without requiring a fundamental change to the rule.

Miranda does not seem to be an impediment to good antiterror police work, as Mr. Holder himself noted on Thursday before the House Judiciary Committee. Investigators questioned Faisal Shahzad, the suspect in the Times Square bombing attempt, for three or four hours before giving him a Miranda warning, receiving useful information both before and after the warning. He readily waived his right to a quick hearing before a judge.

More……..

May 16, 2010 Posted by | Counterpoints, Editorial, Government, Law, Media, PoliticalDog Calls, Politics, Updates | , , | 3 Comments