a simple search will reveal the source of this article (or any number of other articles out there). unfortunately, the other one that i read had less information.

here's a link to the originally posted article:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/26/LODI.TMP

8/28/2006 2:32:01 PM

Quote :

"havent we kind of figured out that they dont have to let them have lawyers?"

From http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/mirandarights/a/mirandaqa.htm:

Quote :

"Q. At what point are police required to inform a suspect of their Miranda rights? A. After a person has officially been taken into custody (detained by police), but before any interrogation takes place, police must inform them of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. A person is considered to be "in custody" anytime they are placed in an environment in which they do not believe they are free to leave. Example: Police can question witnesses at crime scenes without reading them their Miranda rights, and should a witness implicate themselves in the crime during that questioning, their statements could be used against them later in court."

Notice the above quote says nothing of being arrested/charged with a crime. It says after a person is taken into custody. If the FBI pulled these guys aside to a separate room they were detained by the FBI.

8/28/2006 2:38:29 PM

Unless they are free to leave the separate room.

8/28/2006 2:43:41 PM

^true.

8/28/2006 2:56:42 PM

Quote :

"Q. Does Miranda apply to all incriminating statements made to police? A. No. Miranda does not apply to statements a person makes before they are arrested. "

again...the miranda rights are not applicable here

so nutsmackr, please clarifiy how Bush has gone too fucking far this time

8/28/2006 3:04:29 PM

Meh. I read the first quote from that site as saying that they had to read you your rights (hence you have them) even when they detain you for questioning - no mention of arrest.

Quote :

"Q. Can police arrest or detain a person without reading them their Miranda rights? A. Yes, but until the person has been informed of his or her Miranda rights, any statements made by them during interrogation may be ruled inadmissible in court."

They really don't make "does a person have the right to have a lawyer" the focal point of the Q&A.

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 3:21 PM. Reason : -]

8/28/2006 3:20:06 PM

i still want to say miranda rights are solely for police arresting individuals for domestic/US laws/crimes

dont think theres any jurisdiction for this particular case

the 6th amendment on the other hand guarantees fair trial with council...but theres obviously no trial (yet) if they havent even filed any charges

8/28/2006 3:21:56 PM

Yeah, you're probably right.

8/28/2006 3:24:19 PM

Quote :

"i still want to say miranda rights are solely for police arresting individuals for domestic/US laws/crimes[quote] So aiding terrorists is not a crime? [quote]dont think theres any jurisdiction for this particular case"

Because the US refused entry to US Citizens

Quote :

"the 6th amendment on the other hand guarantees fair trial with council...but theres obviously no trial (yet) if they havent even filed any charges"

What are they suspected of? What crime did they violate? You cannot hold someone hostage because a relative broke a law.

8/28/2006 4:07:35 PM

they didn't "refuse entry"...the two individuals you speak of are on the "no-fly list"...doesn't matter if they were American citizens or not...they're on the no-fly list

and they're not holding them hostage

they're asking them questions about their terrorist relative

whats the big deal?

8/28/2006 4:09:42 PM

Yeah, this whole "denied entry" thing is a useless topic. These people are on the no-fly list and they were not allowed to fly. They need to go through the process of getting off the no-fly list, which I think step 1 of is not likely to be "Piss off the FBI"

8/28/2006 4:24:09 PM

why were they placed on a no-fly list? The same list that prevents democratic senators, representatives and peace activists from flying.

and they are being held hostage. They are not allowed to fly back into the united states unless they forgo their rights as US citizens.

Why can't they be interviewed in the US? Why do they have to be interviewed in Pakistan?

8/28/2006 4:24:33 PM

Hey nuts...they couldn't do it here because they were on the NO-FLY LIST
I mean, if they wanted to swim in for an interview...


And I don't know why they were on the no-fly list...I suspect it has to do with ties to extremism, but I really am not sure without more evidence.

And if that list includes some legitimately peaceful peace activists, then I assume they could be removed without too much trouble.

Also, were they actually being held or were they simply not allowed to enter the plane and then were asked to stay for further questioning...I mean, are they still there at the airport right now?

8/28/2006 4:31:05 PM

Quote :

"why were they placed on a no-fly list?"

neither i nor you nor anybody in this thread knows the answer

Quote :

"The same list that prevents democratic senators, representatives and peace activists from flying."

I'm pretty sure that democratic senators and representatives fly

also the other three family members WERE allowed to continue to the united states so how do you explain that one?

Quote :

"and they are being held hostage. They are not allowed to fly back into the united states unless they forgo their rights as US citizens."

plain and simply, no thats not true...they are not being held hostage...they are not allowed to fly to the united states because they are on the no-fly list...their status as US citizens does not play into this at all...there are US citizens not on the no-fly list and there are non-US citizens who are on the no-fly list

Quote :

"Why can't they be interviewed in the US? Why do they have to be interviewed in Pakistan? "

again...neither you nor i nor anyone on tww knows this but i'm sure the FBI does

so back to what you were saying though...about Bush has gone too fucking far this time...please elaborate...cause it sounds to me like this thread is shooting first and not even asking questions

8/28/2006 4:31:49 PM

^you gotta understand man....in the mind of someone who lives to bush-bash.....bush has these guys tied to chairs somewhere dripping water on the heads until they confess..


but yes nutsmacker....please elaborate on how specifically bush has gone too far this time??

8/28/2006 4:35:51 PM

the fbi has gone too far

the fbi's boss (ultimately) is bush.

8/28/2006 5:01:59 PM

if even one of these two guys being questioned can answer a few questions about his terrorist relative that helps prevent a terrorist attack or improves our intelligence...

has the FBI still gone too far?

point being, hasnt this thread jumped the gun?

8/28/2006 5:03:16 PM

yes. i don't believe in sacrificing rights for our war on terrorism.

8/28/2006 5:06:11 PM

remind me again what specific right was sacrificed

didn't we figure, with the miranda rights, and the no-fly list, that no rights have been sacrificed?

8/28/2006 5:06:47 PM

i think the no-fly lists are wrong and not in the spirit of the constitution

it's effectively punishing someone without charging them with a crime or withholding what the threat or reason is.

8/28/2006 5:10:38 PM

the no-fly list isn't published and people don't know why they are on it, or if they are on it until they go to the airport.

This list was originally created for fugitives, known drug smugglers and terrorists. Now it is being used for whatever purpose they want.

fuck that. These people have been exiled and the fact that the government is being supported in this is bullshit

and the whole terrorism argument is a strawman.

8/28/2006 5:13:52 PM

i thought the whole first post was a strawman

8/28/2006 5:15:12 PM

we're not arguing over the first post, we're arguing over the event that the article in the first post relates. i couldn't care less what nutsmackr thinks about bush.

8/28/2006 5:38:34 PM

well i think since none of us know anything about the two Lodi men all we can do is speculate

if they are innocent and know nothing about their terrorist uncle, i'm sure they will be let go

if they are guilty or know some helpful information about their terrorist uncle or his dealings, i'm sure that will help the overall intelligence community on antiterror

i dont think people are put on no-fly lists for no reason though

8/28/2006 5:46:26 PM

Quote :

"the fbi has gone too far the fbi's boss (ultimately) is bush. "

Wow...I'll be sure to write and blame the president next time my mail doesn't get here on time or a teacher uses a cureword in a classroom. Because it is his fault (ultimately)

Also, I don't disagree with the no-fly list in theory. If it is used for people with known or pretty-certain ties to terrorist groups, I don't see the big deal in not letting them fly on US planes. Now, when other people (like Cat Stephens and apparantly all democratic senators get on the list, it needs to have different qualifications)

8/28/2006 5:48:15 PM

8/28/2006 5:48:18 PM

That counter-argument was red X-elent Dental

8/28/2006 5:50:46 PM

^^this has actually been a good thread

maybe you should leave and go memorize the pledge of allegiance

8/28/2006 5:51:08 PM

ha im gonna go wipe my ass with it

8/28/2006 5:53:22 PM

i wonder how much better america would be if democrats won in 2000

8/28/2006 5:54:12 PM

al gore wonders the same thing

every....waking....moment

8/28/2006 5:54:38 PM

well my life in the soapbox would be alot better.

that might be it

8/28/2006 5:55:00 PM

we would probably all be in agreement about giving the govt the leeway it needed to properly monitor terrorist activities and intelligence...democrats because their party would be for it, everybody else from common sense

8/28/2006 5:59:11 PM

im sure this would be happening too.

8/28/2006 6:04:51 PM

Quote :

"we're not arguing over the first post, we're arguing over the event that the article in the first post relates. "

An event we know remarkably little about.

They were probably on the no-fly list because:

Quote :

"Jaber Ismail was one of several people mentioned by his cousin, Hayat, during a videotaped interview with the FBI in Sacramento in June 2005 that prompted Hayat's arrest. [...] Hayat said Jaber Ismail "went, like, two years ago." Asked if his cousin had gone to the same camp he had attended, Hayat said, "I'm not sure, but I'll say he went to a camp.""

So, there's a little bit more to being on the no-fly list than the fact that the two just happened to be related to someone who attended terrorist summer camp.

The article also states that Ismail is declining to be interviewed without a lawyer. It does not say that the FBI is refusing to conduct interviews with a lawyer present.

Quote :

"She said the teenager had run afoul of the FBI when he [Ismail] declined to be interviewed again without a lawyer and refused to take a lie-detector test."

8/28/2006 6:10:26 PM

^Nice work...

So there you go, he was on the no-fly list not because his uncle was a terrorist, but because a known terrorist fingered him for attending a camp...

Is it ok to put him on the no-fly list then?

8/28/2006 6:11:49 PM

no, i think the no-fly lists are bogus for people who aren't accused of any crime. especially if they could personally search him and all his luggage, so that he could be questioned in the united states.

also:

that article speaks on the lack of credibility of the person who "fingered" all the terrorists. he even says himself he isn't sure.

i have no problem with searching him extensively etc. he is a suspicious person, since he is linked to a criminal and a criminal named him. this does not mean that he couldn't go ahead with his flight after being extensively searched.

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 6:15 PM. Reason : .]

8/28/2006 6:13:14 PM

Yeah, well if you don't believe in no-fly lists based on people who spend time at terrorist training camps...you're too fucked to argue with...incorrigible

8/28/2006 6:14:47 PM

good going with the ad hominem.

what threat is his flying to the united states if he is extensively searched (perhaps even handcuffed and escorted)?

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 6:17 PM. Reason : .]

8/28/2006 6:16:24 PM

WAAAAAAAHHHH! BUSH MADE US SAFER AFTER 9/11!

WAAAAAAAHHHH! IMPEACH BUSH SINCE WE CANT WIN AN ELECTION WITH OUR LEFTY PLATFORMS!

8/28/2006 6:36:33 PM

Quote :

" especially if they could personally search him and all his luggage, so that he could be questioned in the united states. "

ah yes...now here is some good logic...lets see

last time we were attacked it was with airplanes...soo....lets let these people go ahead and board the planes over seas....and after they get here....and havent flown them into buildings yet...THEN lets go ahead and search them...that makes perfect sense

8/28/2006 6:39:15 PM

i was saying to search him before the flight. i thought that was clear.

8/28/2006 6:48:21 PM

im going to start blaming everything on Reagan just for shits

8/28/2006 6:50:44 PM

Quote :

"that article speaks on the lack of credibility of the person who "fingered" all the terrorists. he even says himself he isn't sure."

Well, look at whose credibility is being questioned, and by whom. The article mentions three people:

1) Jaber Ismail: the man who's on the no-fly list
2) Hayat: Ismail's cousin, the man who did the fingering
3) Umer Hayat: Hayat's father

Umer questions his own credibility in the last several paragraph's of the article. I'm not even sure why Umer is mentioned at such length--it doesn't seem relevant since he's not the one who named Ismail as a camp attendee.

The validity of Hayat's confession naming Ismail is questioned by his lawyers: "the videotaped confession was contradictory and suggested that agents had manipulated the interview."

Ismail, Hayat, and Umer are essentially questioning the veracity of their own statements. Which is, not incidently, in their own self interest. This cannot be considered a credible, un-biased assement of their statements.

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 6:57 PM. Reason : ]

8/28/2006 6:53:08 PM

it sho' is enough to keep them off the plane to figure some stuff out

8/28/2006 6:55:48 PM

OK, couple of things I don't understand:

1 - These no-fly lists, who issues them and are they enforced worldwide? If they are, how were the two men able to fly, only to find out in Hong Kong at the layover that they couldn't continue further?

2 - Why aren't the lists made public? If they can't be made public, at the very least, if person X is on the list, and he comes to the airport to fly, he should be told he can't fly. If he is allowed to fly, only to ne returned back at a layover or at his destination, where is the "no" part of the no-fly list?

3 - These guys can't return to the US because a) they are barred entry to the US or b) they are on a no-fly list, hence, if they can't fly, they can't enter the country, even though they flew halfway (Again, why were they allowed to board?) If the answer is b), then can they enter the US by sea?

8/28/2006 7:03:12 PM

1) The lists are maintained by the TSA, which is part of the US government. I'm sure the list is shared among various governments, but the US government can only enforce the list on flights departing from or ending at US airports.

2) The lists reflect intelligence we have regarding people who're terrorists/crimminals. If the lists are made public, then terrorists/crimminals know that they've been found out--which defeats the purpose of the surveilance and intelligence.

3) Dunno. If they travelled by sea, I don't know if they would be detained in the US for questioning or if they would simply be restricted to whatever ship they travelled on.

8/28/2006 7:13:13 PM

Quote :

"but the US government can only enforce the list on flights departing from or ending at US airports."

Well in that case, they shouldn't have been allowed to board in Pakistan. Yeah I know, technically, the flight they boarded ended in HK, and that's why in HK they couldn't board the flight to the US. But if the US knew they were flying to the US when they boarded in Pakistan, it is cruel and jokerish to let them have boarded only to be told to return when they had a transit in HK.

BTW, thanks for your answers.

So, as to Q3, it is not clear if they are barred entry to the US, or if they are just on a no-fly list.

Also, if the US knew they were headed to the US when they boarded in Pakistan, the FBI could have detained them there and then escorted them to the US. If they are of any intelligence value, they are better off in the US, as in Pakistan they could easily disappear. Wait, ehy can't the US do that now--escort them to the US? I guess they would refuse.

8/28/2006 7:23:42 PM

Who said the US government knew they were travelling to the US when they left Pakistan? The government doesn't know who's on a flight until the airline gives them a passenger list just prior to departure. The passenger manifest is based on who has checked in at the counter/gate.

8/28/2006 7:32:59 PM

Quote :

"The government doesn't know who's on a flight until the airline gives them a passenger list just prior to departure"

So isn't this like in real time, being electronic and all.

I can't see what's so hard about feeding the passenger manifest into the system half an hour before departure, and red flashing lights and beeps going off in the TSA's office in the US. The TSA fires the passenger's name back saying he can't fly, and then airport security restricts him from crossing the gate.

They should have a system like that.

8/28/2006 7:36:37 PM