Nokoman

Maybe he could use kimilseung's defense from yesterday? That he didn't have any choice? That 'no' wasn't a word he was acquainted with?

dakota44

Good point, but I suppose it depends on what they get in return in terms of other helpful information, assuming he has any. The death penalty is not a given, although preferred by some. Life vs the death penalty could be on the table as a means to prevent an open and costly trial and the potential publication of classified information or as a gift for further cooperation. Could be unlikely, but it would still not surprise me. It is all a guessing game at this point.

Nokoman

A plea agreement!!! My that sounds highly likely. Is the case against him weak? A little short of evidence perhaps?

They catch a terrorist. The evidence is mountainous and you suggest a plea?

Jerseygirl

Maybe the plea agreement doesn't go very far...maybe the Feds took execution off the table.

dakota44

Interestingly enough, he wasn't charged under the terrorism statute. No terrorism charge. Period. I suggested nothing and only stated possible reasons that a plea could, though perhaps unlikely, be offered.

Nokoman

It's now perhaps unlikely.

dakota44

One can be surprised at the unlikely actually happening. I seem to recall that was basically what I said, that I would not be surprised if it happened.

Nokoman

We are now leaping between "perhaps unlikely" to "not being surprised"

Well Dakota, it looks like you have all the bases covered.

Setting yourself up nicely for an " I told you so."

This is like an each-way bet in a two horse race.

How about tossing in that you feel very strongly he could be found guilty or not guilty ??

dakota44

Clearly you have forgotten the text of the original post. Let me refresh your memory. Stop reading more into it.

"I would not be overly surprised at a possible plea agreement. There really is no defense that I can see. "My brother made me do it" is not a defense."

zargof

Actually, the Supreme Court didn't say so, however, the Obama administration has intepreted it as such.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...miranda-rights

Nokoman

Would you like some WD40 for your trick cycle? On second thoughts it is very well oiled and you are a master on it.

dakota44

I don't read The New Republic. I do, however, occasionally read Supreme Court decisions.

New York vs Quarles, upheld by SCOTUS. That was the case in which SCOTUS ruled that public safety can take precedence over Miranda, and overruled 3 lower courts in the process. Not much of a leap at all to know that public safety was a serious consideration in Boston, far more so than in NY vs Quarles.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/467/649

zargof

Clearly you didn't read it very carefully if you think the "narrow exception" due to "imminent threat" granted in this decision equates to 16 hours of questioning of a suspect.

Leslie

Oh FFS.

dakota44

Already covered the probable reason for the 16 hours, which no doubt were not continuous given the medical condition of the suspect. If one thinks that there was no potential imminent danger, then I despair. There was far more reason to assume so than in the case cited.