TMF

They should be trained on just about everything out there. Would it have mattered? No.

And how many seconds passed from the time they dropped the bombs to the time they went off? Would it have mattered? Absolutely not, unless they had 100s of explosives detections dogs stationed all over that area actively involved in doing detection. Despite what you think you know about EDDs, it wouldn't have mattered if there was one 20 ft away from where the first bomb was. If he wasn't actively doing detection it would not have done anything. Dogs can only do detection for so long before they are cashed. So unless there just happened to be one there, doing detection in the limited window that the backpack was there then your point is, well, pointless.

Probably not with this case. They are going to need a controlled environment with the guy on no pain meds. This isn't the type of interrogation you do bedside. They may try question him to some degree to determine of there are any imminent threats, such as another cell, but it's probably safe to say that he has no knowledge of that due to the structure of these organizations and where he sits on the totem as an expendable. The main show will occur in a controlled environment. It ain't like he's some druggie who did a drive by.

He is invited on to the property by a person legally residing there, the father. No different than if your aunt invited him on. That is where the problem begins and ends. If she isn't willing to evict the father (her son) then her problem lies with herself. She is completely in control of her destiny and is unwilling to take the steps to resolve her problem. If you shoot him or she shoots him it will probably result in jail time.

Saw the title and thought this was gonna be a Woody Allen thread.

I understand the sentiment here, and however this goes will be what sets the precedent. I believe in the preservation of his rights, not for the sake of him, of course. It's just that I'm not educated enough on the subject to understand at what point a person has a right to an attorney if there is no exchange with the suspect relating to the criminal case. It seems moot since he could admit to anything and everything during an interrogation and it will have no bearing on his trial. That doesn't sound to me as if his rights are being violated. No different than if a judge orders to have him held without bail... that happens all the time. Seems the only difference here is that the suspect has a golden ticket to say whatever he likes without it affecting him criminally. At any rate, it will be a while before that happens since he won't be interrogated until being discharged from the hospital. I would really like an attorney to chime in with their opinion on the matter, and what the precedent set by this will mean for future cases such as this.

You're right about that, but he will talk.

Right, but he is the best connection they'll have to solving the puzzle. He may have seemingly limited knowledge, but that limited knowledge can put them on the right track, confirm educated assumptions or reports, or fill in gaps. That, paired with related intel they already have is a whole lot. I have a feeling the unnamed country looking into the older brother is being tapped for everything they got. Expect that your various tier 1 door kicker units will be shooting people in the face in distant lands over the weekend.

Inshallah.

Gonna make another WAG and say a wealthy Saudi benefactor.

I'm not so sure his rights are being violated since whatever he says during his interrogation can't be used against him in court. His interrogation will not involve anything resembling torture. I bet they get him to crack in a matter of hours without anyone even raising their voice. Help me on this one, since I'm not as learned as some, but how and what rights are being violated by interrogating the individual for intel purposes independent of a criminal investigation?

No, you misunderstand. He will be interrogated before he is read his rights. It doesn't matter that it can't be used in court. He's toast either way. His interrogation will reveal information leading to his handler(s) and the folks overseas who oversaw their operation. Based on the reports that the FBI questioned him on behalf of a foreign gov two years ago, I'm gonna take a WAG and say it was the Saudis who asked and this will lead back to AQ. I don't believe the FBI would answer a request from the Russians, but maybe?

Not likely or even necessary in this case, but would be entertaining and deserved.

He will not have that option.

In KY it's law on roads that are posted. I don't believe it applies on roads where you can make left turns.

Based on my extensive experience dealing with terrorists I vehemently disagree.

He is 19. His brother, who likely is the one who brainwashed him into it is dead. He will crack like an egg. This ain't about his criminal trial at all. There is plenty of physical and eyewitness evidence to convict him. What we need now is the network that recruited, trained and funded him. He isn't a hardened believer like KSM. He is 19. A halfway experienced interrogator will squeeze him dry of everything pertinent. Chances are his interrogator will be a team of the most experienced folks our country has.

It ain't about answers just for the sake of answers. There is likely a network of folks who need to get a hot lead injection and he may be the key to making that happen.

Probably one of those home grown Constitutionalist Tea Bagger right wing gun nut... who just happens to be Muslim.

Crap, I was really hoping they would take this one alive. He'd be a wealth of intel. These two were likely recruited by one of the big Islamic terror groups. Would be nice to get insight into that. Considering his age and the fact his brother died as a result, they could easily break this guy in a day and get a whole lotta stuff. There will be a lot of gaps in how these guys were recruited, trained and funded without a live body to get that info from.

Ha, my accident when I was 16 was all my fault. Foot on the gas, head up my azz. A learning experience and since have made sure that my perceived ability to drive and my actual ability to drive does not differ.

I haven't been in an accident since I was 16 and haven't been pulled over in TN, ever, and I've lived here for 10 years. I drive defensively and anticipatory.

Considering the location of the bombs and the event they attacked it was probably one of the most videoed/photographed spots in the US at the time. I bet they didn't think that part through. Not really Orwellian when you consider all the photography was being done by independent businesses and patrons of the event. No different than just having a whole bunch if witnesses.

I've changed my scenario in every one of my post? I don't understand your point. I was offering up different scenarios for context. Not sure what you want here or what that is supposed to prove. In regard to getting pissed, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a truthful person that doesn't get pissed when someone is riding their bumper for no reason. I don't know what that is supposed to prove either. If I get pissed that isn't the definition of road rage. Driving illegally and aggressively is. In my world slowing down is not aggressive behavior. Tailgating is. So I don't understand your point here in your suggestion that I am road raging when I am acting in a calm manner. Being pissed doesn't prove anything. I get pissed when I flip through all my presets and there is nothing but commercials, yet I don't bash in my radio. Once again, the rage is in the actions of the person. Slowing down is not illegal or aggressive. It sounds to me like you just want to argue or you are the type who likes to ride bumpers. Either way, you will not convince me that lawful and safe behavior makes me responsible for the actions of other people or makes me culpable for escalating the situation. I'd like to find a law enforcement officer agree that slowing down is an aggressive provokation.

Kong chew toys. They are the best out there.