On 2013-04-27 17:10, Woland wrote:
Hi landmark,

Quote:

For those who don't have a scorecard, David Horowitz, like Woland, was a Stalinist in his youth, born of Stalinist parents

I would never have expected you to engage in such red-baiting. Of all people . . . .

On 2013-04-27 22:29, tommy wrote:


Graham Fuller, - ex father in law of the uncle of Tamerlan -former Deputy Director of the CIA’s National Council on Intelligence...

Do police officers sometimes use trickery to obtain a confession? Yes. And when it backfires on them (as often can happen) they seriously jeopardize the State's case.

On 2013-04-27 23:25, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-04-27 22:29, tommy wrote:

Graham Fuller, - ex father in law of the uncle of Tamerlan -former Deputy Director of the CIA’s National Council on Intelligence...

Let's see: Fuller to his daughter- one degree of separation; then to his daughter's ex-husband - two degrees; to his daughter's ex-husband's sibling- three degrees; to the daughter's ex-husband's sibling's son - four degrees...

wikipedia wrote:

Deception

Deception can form an important part of effective interrogation. In the United States, there is no law or regulation that forbids the interrogator from lying about the strength of their case, from making misleading statements or from implying that the interviewee has already been implicated in the crime by someone else. See case law on trickery and deception (Frazier v. Cupp).[1]

As noted above, traditionally the issue of deception is considered from the perspective of the interrogator engaging in deception towards the individual being interrogated. Recently, work completed regarding effective interview methods used to gather information from individuals who score in the medium to high range on measures of psychopathology and are engaged in deception directed towards the interrogator have appeared in the literature [2] [3] The importance of allowing the psychopathic interviewee to tell one lie after another and not confront until all of the lies have been presented is essential when the goal is to use the interview to expose the improbable statements made during the interview in future court proceedings.

wikipeidia wrote:

Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case that affirmed the legality of deceptive interrogation tactics.[1]
Contents

1 Background of the case
2 Arguments during appeal
3 The court's decision
4 Subsequent history
5 References
6 Further reading
7 External links

Background of the case

Acting on a tip, police picked up and interrogated Martin E. Frazier, a 20-year-old U.S. Marine, about his possible involvement in the murder of Russell Anton Marleau.[2] Frazier, along with his cousin, Jerry Lee Rawls, was seen at a bar with the victim before the murder.[3]

During the interrogation, police falsely informed Frazier that Rawls had already confessed and implicated him in the murder.[4] Frazier denied any involvement in the crime, and suggested speaking with an attorney, but police continued to question him.[5] Police elicited a confession, which was used against him at trial.

Frazier was convicted of the murder of Russell Anton Marleau. Jerry Lee Rawls pleaded guilty to the same offense.[6]
Arguments during appeal

Frazier appealed his conviction to the United States Supreme Court on three main points.

The defense argued Frazier was denied his Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine the prosecution's witness, Rawls, because Rawls refused to answer questions after the prosecution referenced elements from his prior statements to police.[7]
The defense claimed, under Escobedo v. Illinois and Miranda v. Arizona, Frazier was denied his right to counsel during his interrogation because questioning continued after he suggested speaking with an attorney. The defense also claimed Frazier's confession was involuntary and should have been suppressed.[8]
The defense argued evidence used against Frazier was obtained during an illegal search of a gym bag used jointly by Frazier and Rawls.

Later case law has interpreted Frazier v. Cupp as the case permitting police deception during interrogations. The Court stated,

The fact that the police misrepresented the statements that Rawls had made is, while relevant, insufficient, in our view, to make this otherwise voluntary confession inadmissible.[13]

The language of the ruling did not specifically state which forms of police deception were acceptable, but the ruling provided a precedent for a confession being voluntary even though deceptive tactics were used.

On 2013-04-27 16:42, mastermindreader wrote:
What you quoted is NOT a Miranda warning, nor is it a clever substitute for one. Miranda only applies to suspects who are in custody and/or are subject to custodial interrogation.

From the Miranda case- here are the requirements of the warning that must be CLEARLY given.

"The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he/she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he/she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he/she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him/her."

The statement you quoted doesn't come close to fulfilling those requirements.

On 2013-04-27 22:13, mastermindreader wrote:
But remember, Miranda only applies AFTER a defendant is taken into custody.

Confessions obtained by trickery or by subverting otherwise getting around Miranda are excluded from evidence.

Do police officers sometimes use trickery to obtain a confession? Yes. And when it backfires on them (as often can happen) they seriously jeopardize the State's case.

On 2013-04-27 23:25, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-04-27 22:29, tommy wrote:


Graham Fuller, - ex father in law of the uncle of Tamerlan -former Deputy Director of the CIA’s National Council on Intelligence...

Let's see: Fuller to his daughter- one degree of separation; then to his daughter's ex-husband - two degrees; to his daughter's ex-husband's sibling- three degrees; to the daughter's ex-husband's sibling's son - four degrees...

It all fits!! Tamerlan MUST have been an agent!

After reading yesterday's accounts in the Wall Street Journal, we see the consequences of the Left's counter-war on the war on terror coming to fruition in the inept mishandling of the interrogation of the younger Tsarnaev.

First, the Obama administration, buying the idea that terrorism is really a problem for law enforcement, decided not to designate the surviving Tsarnaev brother as an enemy combatant and to conduct his interrogation under the rules reserved for garden-variety criminals. The Obama Administration limited its ability to ask questions of Tsarnaev without Miranda warnings or a defense lawyer present only to a narrow "public safety" exception, which runs only to questions about imminent dangers and crimes.

Now the news comes that the person who actually read the Miranda warning to Tsarnaev wasn't even an FBI agent, but a U.S. magistrate judge (magistrate judges are sort of like junior federal judges -- they are appointed by the courts to assist them, but they are not real judges, and are subject to revision by real federal judges).

This is an outright violation of the separation of powers. It is not for federal judges, or worse yet their assistants, to rove around looking for criminal cases in which to act as law enforcement agents. The decision whether to read Miranda lies up to the executive branch. The right of the courts to affect the warnings and conditions of interrogation stems only from their control over the criminal trial of the suspect. Miranda itself is only a declaration by the courts that they will exclude from evidence any confessions received without a warning. Under the Constitution, the President is responsible for the enforcement of the laws, not the courts -- the courts' constitutional job is to decide cases and controversies that arise under those laws.

But the Obama Administration apparently did not protest very hard against this violation of the separation of powers. And we can see why. When the war on terror began, the Left's immediate reaction was to domesticate it by subjecting it to the same rules that apply to domestic crime. They have waged long struggles in the courts to invite judges to intervene in military and national security decisions that have never fallen within the review of the courts in any previous war. They succeeded in having the federal courts, for the first time in any American war, exercise habeas review over a military prison camp, at Guantanamo Bay.

If you live in that world, why not have judges intervene in the decision to read Miranda warnings to terrorists, even before the executive branch has decided the question and even before any case has come to the court? Just as Obama is trapped by ideology on the Miranda question, he is equally trapped by his anti-war roots in allowing judges to intervene where they have no right to tread. Our national security will only suffer as a result.

On 2013-04-28 09:44, mastermindreader wrote:
I'd like to see a case where a "warning" worded as you suggested has been held to be adequate. Even under the loosest interpretation of Miranda (see, for example, Florida v. Powell, analyzed at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20100315.html) it is clear that such a warning doesn't come close to meeting the minimum standards of Miranda.

The statement you gave doesn't even acknowledge that the suspect is in custody. It implies that he/she is merely being interviewed as a "witness." If that were truly the case, a Miranda warning wouldn't even be required. But if the suspect is arrested or in custody, the full protections of Miranda apply and the suspect must clearly be advised of his rights.