Beck: Of course Shahzad should get Mirandized!
posted at 9:30 am on May 4, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Glenn Beck and Judge Andrew Napolitano both wind up on the same side of this debate, thanks to Faisal Shahzad’s status as an American citizen. “Of course” Shahzad should get Mirandized, Beck tells Fox and Friends this morning, warning that “you don’t shred the Constitution — ever.” Shahzad will get Mirandized anyway when he appears in court and a judge confirms Shahzad’s understanding of his rights during his arraignment. Napolitano points out that authorities can skip the Miranda warning, but at their own peril; anything Shahzad says won’t be able to be used in court without the warning, and law enforcement agents who deliberately withhold it could face legal sanctions for doing so. The Right Scoop captures the debate:
Beck and Napolitano are correct. Shahzad is an American citizen, arrested by law enforcement in America. As a US citizen, Shahzad has the right to remain silent. In that sense, he differs from the EunuchBomber, who attempted to enter the country (our airspace) to conduct a sabotage mission for an enemy of the US. Ambdulmuttalab should have immediately been taken into custody by military and intelligence agencies, not the FBI, in order to make his status as an enemy combatant clear.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Who on earth does not know the Miranda admonition ? They have TV in Pakistan too .
borntoraisehogs on May 4, 2010 at 1:55 PM
Jesus loves you.
The Race Card on May 4, 2010 at 2:16 PM
Liberal Fascists may sometimes use different methods than the more “radical” Fascists, but they all choose their victims by the same criteria.
Think about it: Is there really a moral difference between wearing fur and wearing leather? Or is it just EASIER and SAFER to throw paint on little old ladies than on biker gangs?
logis on May 4, 2010 at 2:16 PM
As the old saying goes: Ignorance of the law is no excuse — unless it’s presumed ignorance of the most widely known law of the land. And then it’s an absolute defense, even in the face of something as unquestionably damning as a signed confession.
logis on May 4, 2010 at 2:19 PM
Which of my beliefs or professed policy preferences is liberal?
The Race Card on May 4, 2010 at 2:25 PM
Crap. Logis, I think I forgot to add you to my list. I’ll take care of that, okay? You’re in good company.
The Race Card on May 4, 2010 at 2:25 PM
Jesus loves muslems too.
Too bad converting away from islam carries a death sentence.
Why is that?
Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 2:27 PM
This is the one time I will ever agree with Beck the clown.
You can’t strip American citizens of their rights.
Dave Rywall on May 4, 2010 at 2:29 PM
Let the courts apply Miranda. However, Miranda precedents don’t require interrogators to inform suspects of Fifth Amendment rights. Miranda precedents merely force courts to reject certain evidence.
So it all boils down to what the interrogators want – intel or evidence. The bottom line is that it’s not a violation of the Fifth Amendment to omit Miranda rights as long as interrogators aren’t compelling suspects to be a witness against themselves.
blink on May 4, 2010 at 2:31 PM
That’s true.
Except in this case, Beck is wrong about what is and isn’t a right.
blink on May 4, 2010 at 2:32 PM
American citizen? Maybe–maybe not:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
Noel on May 4, 2010 at 2:35 PM
The Race Card is bigoted and prejudiced. I suspect that race plays little role in his beliefs about
MuslimsConservatives. He hates them equally whether they’re from Beslan, Indonesia or next door.blink on May 4, 2010 at 2:36 PM
Last time I checked the former Montgomery Cty. (Maryland) Police Chief Charles Moose was still looking for a white man in a white van.
viking01 on May 4, 2010 at 3:01 PM
Yep, agreed.
dedalus on May 4, 2010 at 3:03 PM
Dave, if you listen to him and or Rush more I think you will find you agree with them more than you would ever have thought you would.
jpmn on May 4, 2010 at 3:47 PM
Beck is a nitwit at times. This is one.
AnninCA on May 4, 2010 at 4:45 PM
Andrew, Glenn, Brian, Allison and Steve. All great American names. Anyone ever met a Faisal? I’m just sayin.
mike_NC9 on May 4, 2010 at 5:15 PM
If you’re a traitor to “your” country, and you want to destroy everything it stands for, including miranda rights, no, he should not be protected by them.
YoungAmerican on May 4, 2010 at 5:21 PM
Linear time is one of a great many concepts that no one who thinks subjectively (i.e., no liberal) will ever be able to comprehend.
If his allegiance is to a foreign aggressor, he doesn’t magically stop being an American citizen when the evidence of that makes its way into a courtroom after clearing the appropriately arbitrary hoops.
If his allegiance is to a foreign aggressor, then that means he was NEVER an American citizen.
logis on May 4, 2010 at 5:48 PM
Naturalization Oath:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
I count 3 outright lies told, and one blasphemous oath. But that’s just me. We’ll let God sort it out, our job is just to facilitate the meeting.
mojo on May 4, 2010 at 5:54 PM
Exactly.
There are all too many folks here, who think an oath is just some sort of anachronism that has no bearing on anything, a quaint tradition.
The truth is, if you lie on you oath, then you are forsworn and your promise is null and void.
If you lie on your citizenship oath – then you are not a citizen. Period.
Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 6:01 PM
Beck is an idiot at times, and he revels in that.
No reason to really take the guy seriously.
AnninCA on May 4, 2010 at 6:22 PM
mojo half of Congress would fail the citizenship requirements. This guy has apparently done the required steps to become a citizen.
When the German saboteurs were caught at least one was an American citizen. FDR didn’t allow him a civilian trial.
There is precedent for not giving this guy a civilian trial. However, Beck does have a point that Congress hasn’t passed a clear declaration of war.
Our politicians want everything both ways. We need to hold them accountable. We should avoid war whenever possible but, when we do decide to go the gloves come off and we do whatever it takes to win. Exit Strategy: Same as WWII, Unconditional Surrender.
jpmn on May 4, 2010 at 6:25 PM
AnninCA on May 4, 2010 at 6:22 PM
so you obviously have an opinion, now can you actually think? How is Glenn Beck wrong on this issue, and since a Judge agrees with him, is he an idiot as well?
Anyone can call other people names, but it takes a little intelligence to back that up…oh oh I just called you on being an idiot.
Conservative Voice on May 4, 2010 at 6:53 PM
I’m not a lawyer. Thank God!!!I worked for a living. But shouldn’t applying for American citizenship under false pretenses invalidate that citizenship-especially since your aim all along was to destroy the very country you were applying for naturalization from.
MaiDee on May 4, 2010 at 6:55 PM
Don’t have time to read the thread so I apologize if I’m repeating what someone else has written.
1. Beck is wrong. There is no Constitutional obligation to Mirandize.
2 There is merely an exclusionary rule. If the authorities don’t Mirandize, any evidence obtained as a result is inadmissible.
3. Was it wise to Mirandize in this case, this early? Probably not. It seems likely that they had enough evidence to get a conviction without getting an admissible confession. They should therefore not have “read him his rights” they should have got what intelligence they could have out of him.
Basilsbest on May 4, 2010 at 7:10 PM
Correct. But it is a violation of the Constitution to compel suspects to be a witness against themselves so interrogators should stay clear of that in order to remain compliant.
Well, I think Miranda rights are seen as a way to prevent a violation of compelling a suspect to be a witness against themselves. After all, an interrogator can’t be compelling someone to be a witness against themselves if they’ve clearly told the witness that they have the right to remain silent.
That being said, you’re right, the Constitution doesn’t require that a witness be informed of any rights.
I don’t know, either, but you’re thinking about it correctly. We would need to know the quality of the case prior to the arrest.
blink on May 4, 2010 at 7:42 PM
Here’s hoping that Faisal “enjoyed” his body search prior to going into the detention cell…
Does he get a full body search EVERY time he leaves for court and then returns to detention?
I hope so…
Khun Joe on May 4, 2010 at 7:55 PM
Too many posts here seem to automatically have this man convicted. While I will say that it is highly likely he did commit the crimes described, until the verdict occurs he is an American Citizen.
Now, if our government worked properly, they would have a solid case to have this man tried for crimes with respect to his petition and oath of citizenship and have his citizenship revoked quickly.
They could then turn him over to who ever they want and he will be afforded the most base of human rights with the intention of breaking him to the point he tells us everything he knows about the attack he committed, any other attacks, those he conspired with, and so forth. But so long as he is An American Citizen, he is afforded the full protections and immunities that such status grants.
I will not give up my rights so that this one man can be treated the way the government may one day chose to treat me without regard for the Constitutional protections I have from being born in this nation to parents who were citizens of this nation. The way the Tea Party is being treated by the MSM and the Democratic party and its leaders, who really thinks that if they are allowed to steal this mans freedoms that they will not also use some catastrophe in the future to steal any person who attends Tea parties theirs? Remember, the whole left of this nation was hoping that the perpetrator was a Tea party member.
astonerii on May 4, 2010 at 8:06 PM
With respect, I don’t think you’re right. Since evidence obtained without a caution is inadmissible how is the suspect being compelled to be a witness against himself? What he’s saying in that situation cannot be used against him.
What section of the Constitution is being violated when a suspect is questioned without being read his rights? I submit that there’s no violation if the evidence is excluded.
Basilsbest on May 4, 2010 at 8:06 PM
Here is a perfect example of the pathetic reasoning behind many of the people who say he should not be read his Miranda Rights. For most crimes, the exclusion of coerced or forced self incriminating through less than constitutional methods from being admissible in court is punishment enough to prevent the abuse of power for which the police are likely to perpetrate in advancing their cases against criminals. They do not want to find the truth so much as get their man put behind bars. Thus, Miranda is meant to prevent Constitutional Infringement against individuals by the government.
In this case, the argument is that this mans rights and immunities are secondary because he may have information that could prevent a future attack. The end result here is that they can put pretty much anyone into indeterminate lock down as part of the war against Islamic terrorist. Thus, getting him to trial is not the objective here, but getting him to talk, and using what ever force is necessary to accomplish this.
This comes back to his Citizenship, is it your position that you are willing to go through the government pulling you out of bed in the middle of the night and waterboarding you until you confess to some crime you may or may not have committed? Say Bill Ayers gets back to his dirty tricks of bombing places, and being a wise person figures trying to frame a Tea Party goer is just the way to get away with it, do you want to be the Tea Party person denied your Constitutional Rights and be subjected to what ever unconstitutional activities the government chooses to use to force you to admit that you planted the bomb and name a bunch of names as conspirators? That is where the country will be headed if you keep this citizen from his constitutional rights.
There is a right way and a wrong way and the right way is just and true and the wrong way is evil and broken. The Constitution does not state that a person should be read a specific phrase, this is true, but the Supreme Court has rules that in order to prevent unconstitutional treatment of suspects, that the government must tell a suspect a specific phrase. This is because the government did not remain in its constitutional boundaries and had to be reprimanded that the Supreme Court made this decision. Not reading a suspect his Miranda Rights is in fact not unconstitutional, but the method in which the government would question this person would in fact be unconstitutional and the first step towards acting in an unconstitutional way is to not inform the suspect that he does in fact have constitutional rights and immunities, and then move on from there and coerce a confession out of him.
astonerii on May 4, 2010 at 8:34 PM
If the man’s a citizen then he has the same rights as the rest of us to a fair trial. Even scumbags like Bundy got that much.
Dr. ZhivBlago on May 4, 2010 at 8:46 PM
I said nothing that justifies your stupid question or innuendo. You are hysterical. Literally. There is a right to remain silent and a right not to be forced to self- incriminate. There is no right to not be asked questions- particularly when the government has solid evidence that you have engaged in an act of terrorism.
Evidence obtained by compulsion is not admissible, you twit.
The government has an obligation to protect the public, not satisfy the unreasonable demands of the self righteously irrational.
Basilsbest on May 4, 2010 at 9:08 PM
You will be able to discard your false indignation tomorrow.
Keep it available for Thursday.
rukiddingme on May 4, 2010 at 9:18 PM
For everyone who says we should strip this guy of his citizenship and rights, one question. Do you want to give Obama the power to say who is an isn’t a citizen with Constitutional rights?
HeroesforGhosts on May 4, 2010 at 9:20 PM
I hope you know what you’re talking about.
Because no one else does.
Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 9:34 PM
Yes, but that doesn’t mean that the Miranda right, itself, is a Constitutional right. It isn’t.
No, we’re not saying that Miranda is a secondary right. We’re saying that Miranda isn’t actually a right at all.
Slow down, Cowboy. We were having a sophisticated discussion about Miranda versus actual Fifth Amendment rights, and you ask about waterboarding?
And you seemed to understand that the purpose for the discussion regarded the collection of intel – not to get a confession.
Actually, this isn’t true at all. The Supreme Court has no rules at all. The Supreme Court merely renders an opinion on individual cases. Don’t confuse the fact that lower courts use these cases as guides with a set of rules.
Unless you think Dred Scott was a Supreme Court rule that mysteriously vanished.
Ding, ding, ding. You got it!
That’s not true. It would depend on the method.
Again, we were discussing the collection of intel. Nobody has suggested that his Miranda rights should be denied in order to get a confession or any other type of evidence.
Frankly, I don’t think you understand the difference which leads me to conclude that you lack an adequate understanding of the subject matter.
blink on May 4, 2010 at 9:41 PM
How many Muslims have you known in your life? What do you do when learn that somebody you know is a Muslim?
I ask because I have a theory that many people are actually not the bigots they claim to be. In much the same way that some do not recognize their own bigotry, many give themselves too much credit.
I wonder if you fall into this category. I could see you falling for a Muslim dude.
The Race Card on May 4, 2010 at 9:41 PM
Er, yup.
The Race Card on May 4, 2010 at 9:46 PM
Believe it or not, in its own incredibly moronic way, your answer actually explains everything there will ever be to know about your opinion on this subject – and every other.
logis on May 4, 2010 at 10:02 PM
How am I not right? I merely stated that “it’s a violation of the Constitution to compel suspects to be a witness against themselves so interrogators should stay clear of that in order to remain compliant.”
The first part of that is from the Fifth Amendment. The second part is open to interpretation – such as you’ve provided here.
Your argument is that the interrogators didn’t compel the suspect to be a witness against themselves, or in other words, they didn’t compel the witness to provide evidence – they merely compelled the witness to provide intelligence. You would further argue that the difference between intelligence and evidence is the intended (and actual) use of such information.
I had already contemplated such an argument, and I think it has a bit of merit. And while the courts are predisposed towards Miranda being an absolute right anytime a suspect has been arrested, they’re also predisposed to the fact that tossing evidence is the remedy for such a violation.
Your argument is also supported by the fact that statements used while suspects are detained, but not yet arrested are admissible – even if the law enforcement official is asking self-incriminating questions prior to the reading of any Miranda rights.
In other words, let’s say a police officer is responding to a robbery and notices two guys running in the opposite direction from the robbery. Let’s also say that the officer has reason to suspect that the two guys may have a weapon. The officer may put handcuffs on the two guys, for his own safety, and ask them why they were running. (This is a Terry Stop).
Now, if one of the guys says, “we’re fleeing an establishment we just robbed” then that statement is admissible as evidence.
Furthermore, some states have laws which require Terry Stop suspects to disclose certain types of information – information which can easily be considered self-incriminating in many different ways. At least one of these laws have held up during an appeals process.
My point is that obtaining information while a suspect is detained isn’t necessarily considered to be compelling suspects to be a witness against themselves. So I think there must be some legal avenue to justify withholding Miranda rights.
blink on May 4, 2010 at 10:10 PM
Um, courts already have the power to strip citizenship in certain circumstances. Maybe some people on here support the courts retaining and exercising that power in this situation.
And some of us are suggesting that citizens have at least one less right than Beck is claiming.
blink on May 4, 2010 at 10:16 PM
The point is why you’re questioning him. If you question him without the warning, you can’t use the information he divulges against him in court.
That, however, doesn’t mean you can’t use it for purposes of rolling up his network, find out where his funding came from, who his connections are. Give him a lawyer, and you won’t get that.
flataffect on May 4, 2010 at 10:28 PM
I’ve spent several years learning about islamic ideology/theology, so I likely know more about islam than 75% of muslems do. I’m no more a “bigot” than someone who has learned to hate communism or fascism – islam is nothing more than a dark-ages fascist ideology with an exceedingly thin veneer of religiosity.
I’m also a married heterosexual male, there is zero chance I’d fall for any “dude”, regardless of ideology.
Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 10:46 PM
Your memory skills are lacking.
I submit discarding the Constitution when convenient is de facto repudiation of the oath of citizenship.
I submit treason is de facto repudiation of the oath of citizenship.
Fixed for clarity.
Keep pointing the finger at all American muslems.
Three fingers point back. (hattip unclesmrgol)
rukiddingme on May 4, 2010 at 10:55 PM
Nope. I’m afraid your constant racist and homosexual slurs still make more sense than this “explanation.”
Try again.
logis on May 4, 2010 at 11:05 PM
I submit that not filling out the census is in fact a misdemeanor with a negligible fine, if even brought up for prosecution. I also submit that anyone who thinks that a citizen should lose said citizenship over that is a complete idiot.
I don’t advocate disbandment of the union, instead I call for having some states leave said union to form a new government that actually adheres to the Constitution as written. The “blue” states can keep the current union, as well as the bills they’ve run up. This is not treason, since exactly that scenario is allowed by the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution, as well as the Declaration of Independence.
So, your position is that a naturalized citizen can freely lie when giving their oath, without penalty? Interesting.
Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 11:10 PM
If this kind of incident increases, SOP may have to change (for this kind of incident). Terrorism has too many implications to not study the matter further. I guess the folks who almost got blown up would agree, and I can put my self in their shoes: a very practical practice. I recommend it.
Sherman1864 on May 5, 2010 at 12:13 AM
Those words do not mean what you think they mean.
You would be wise to not speak of what you do not know.
Paid the fine yet?
Indicative of a pattern. Fixed, since you made it personal.
Heh.
You do not get to keep the US Constitution upon your exit. Write you own.
Make sure you get in a clause declaring your power to decide how the government of the new country operates.
While you are at it, you might as well rescind voting. Do not take the chance of having someone come along and disagree with you.
You seem to stop reading the Constitution after Amendment X.
Read Amendment XIV.
No.
Your hand has one finger pointed at muslems declaring the group unworthy of American citizenship for their beliefs.
Your same hand has three fingers pointing right back at you (provided by your own comments) declaring yourself willing to denounce your own American citizenship for your beliefs.
Your foot fits in the shoe you want all muslem to wear.
rukiddingme on May 5, 2010 at 12:51 AM
Following that d4md socialist FDR’s example of how to treat citizens, is just about stupid as using Stalin’s.
Shahzad appears to be as guilty of attempting mass murder, etc. but he is unfortunately an American citizen. If we allow ourselves to stop obeying the constitution, the enemy has already won. Whether or not you approve of the Miranda warning it is the law, and not, even under a strict textual reading of the constitution, unconstitutional, we must obey the law.
Romans 12:19
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Anyone calling themselves a Cristian, needs to stop calling for vengeance.
Slowburn on May 5, 2010 at 2:59 AM
Let’s see now. I believe that any naturalized citizen swears loyalty to the United States. But what if you, as an agent for a foreign government (‘organization’ in the case of Al Qaeda) became naturalized for the sole purpose of the destroying the very country you were supposedly embracing?
1 Your citizenship is fraudulent from the get-go. Any contract which is made under fraudulent conditions is either void or voidable.
2 You are an enemy spy.
3 ‘Miranda Rights’ appear in what section of the Constitution?
I used to respect Beck but lately he has turned into a scholastic and sophistic ninny.
MaiDee on May 5, 2010 at 4:49 AM
There was no such thing as Miranda then, genius.
Wade on May 5, 2010 at 8:17 AM
I am sure the women who have served on the Supreme Court appreciate your well thought out post.
Wade on May 5, 2010 at 8:19 AM
Nice that you quote the passage of the bible that supports your view, however how do explain this:
Exodus 21:23-25 (King James Version)
23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Wade on May 5, 2010 at 8:27 AM
I reluctantly agree with Mr. Beck and the Judge, because I don’t want to shred the Constitution either. I get very angry when I hear we need to make something law because of the greater good, regardless of the Constitution’s provisions and I hate hypocrisy; so I have to agree with Beck.
amr on May 5, 2010 at 9:23 AM
The fine for not filling out is $100, for false statements it’s $500. 0bama lied on his – when he pays his fine, I’ll pay mine.
I never said 0bama isn’t eligible to be president, resorting to lies now I see.
The document is a gift to all mankind by the founding fathers, besides which the current government clearly has no use for it.
More lies. I stated that the nature of islam is such that a muslem cannot give the oath of citizenship in good faith, since islam demands sovereignty and obedience to it’s laws over any other.
Your foot seems to find your mouth familiar surroundings.
Rebar on May 5, 2010 at 10:02 AM
As many of us have explained – a Miranda disclosure isn’t afforded in the Constitution. A Miranda disclosure is a tool for law enforcement to use to avoid violating the Constitution. Being read a Miranda disclosure isn’t a Constitutional right.
blink on May 5, 2010 at 11:59 AM
Your wrong, is less than another’s wrong, thus, you are right. Got it.
Your concern about Obama’s long form birth certificate is documented here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Your concern must be related to his eligibility to operate heavy equipment. /s
Once again, you do not get to keep the US Constitution when you embark on your journey to create a foreign country.
Your comment has been fixed for clarity.
There must be two commenters here with the same exact name.
The other one said this:
Unworthy of American citizenship according to a different Rebar.
Tighten your belt, your brain is exposed to the elements.
rukiddingme on May 5, 2010 at 12:38 PM
I have to agree with Mr. Beck and I am suprised that we have people that don’t agree. I mean once you open this Pandora’s box this nation would get ugly and fast. What if an American citizen was a suspect and shipped out to be tortured then you find out that he was actually innocent? And if we let this pass, maybe the Govt. will decide that attending a political rally or being a Tea Party member meant that you were a subversive and whisked you away. Once you strip one mans rights, you could be stripping your own.
SGinNC on May 5, 2010 at 1:16 PM
So now I have a wierdo leftist troll stalking me – cool!
Do you turn yourself in every time you go 1 mph over the speed limit? Didn’t think so. If it makes you feel better, I’m moving to Texas next month, and will happily fill out a census when I arrive.
My concern is that 0bama had failed to release hardly any of his documentation, including his college transcripts, state rep records, and a lot of other documents – most of which has nothing to with his citizen status.
Once again – that’s not your call to make. If some states do separate and form a new government under the Constitution, what exactly could you do about it – hold your breath and stamp your feet?
The two statements are logically identical, and the point is perfectly clear. That you choose to not understand it, is sadly predictable.
I look forward to the results of further hours of you researching my posts. Quite flattering, really.
Rebar on May 5, 2010 at 1:52 PM
If found guilty Shazhad should be reminded once again of his right to remain silent right before pulling the switch.
viking01 on May 5, 2010 at 1:56 PM
Agreed, Ed. Shahzad is a citizen and has the same rights as the rest of us.
The real issue here is not even that he can decide not to talk, or how intensively he should be questioned if he does talk.
The issue is how the processes of the law enforcement approach to terrorism have, in the past, led to an emphasis on obtaining indictments in US courts, and a positive DE-emphasis on obtaining information about terror networks.
That was a flaw of the 1993 WTC prosecutions that there is every justification to complain about. I hope the authorities will show their post-9/11 mindset here, and pursue every last lead both on US soil and abroad to unearth the connections. What we need to know doesn’t stop with “just enough to convict Faisal Shahzad.” If the feds can prosecute him effectively AND investigate all his connections, gain intelligence, monitor the important stuff, and interdict future plots, that will be the right outcome.
If they can’t, then they’re doing it wrong. But Mirandizing Shahzad won’t have been “the” problem.
J.E. Dyer on May 5, 2010 at 2:22 PM
You and Beck don’t understand the difference between a Constitutional Right and an exclusionary rule of evidence based on a Constitutional Right. Judges do not create Constitutional Rights.
Miranda decided that evidence resulting from uncautioned questioning is inadmissible. Miranda did not decide that an American citizen engaged in terrorism may not be questioned without being cautioned.
I’m amazed at the number of people who think the right of ordinary citizens to go about their lives without being blown up is not a value which takes precedence over a citizen not being subjected to aggressive questioning. If the authorities had enough evidence on this guy to get a conviction without a confession from him, then their focus should have shifted from getting admissible evidence to getting information on the extent of the threat.
Basilsbest on May 5, 2010 at 2:24 PM
Those words do not mean what you think they mean.
I choose not to speed.
Great, my family and I live in Texas. You shall be met with open arms upon arrival. Leave your foreign country creation desires at the departure gate.
This comment indicates your desire to have him declared ineligible, based upon what you consider to be his questionable citizenship status, should he run for re-election.
You claim that is not a concern of yours? I must be talking to the other commenter named Rebar.
He is hiding the other documents to cause you to lose sleep. It seems to be working.
It has been attempted before. Your side lost.
Since you are determined in repeating the failures of the past, your peaceful intentions to violate my rights as a US citizen will be met with an equal amount of peaceful resistance.
Amendment XIV.
It is clear you want the power to decide how the government operates and which individuals are acceptable citizens.
It is understood. You embracing these thoughts is sad.
Your words used to refute your own argument.
You really should tighten your belt.
rukiddingme on May 5, 2010 at 2:35 PM
Troll is as troll does.
You’ve never gone over the speed limit once, in your whole life, even by accident? Or dropped a piece of litter, or jaywalked, or parked illegally, or spit on the sidewalk?
I’m sure someone, somewhere, believes that.
Your self-imposed blockade has already been breached:
http://tinyurl.com/5xwdmt
http://www.texasnationalist.com/
Perhaps these folks would give me a warmer welcome than yourself.
Actually, the comment indicates my desire for him to produce his documentation, which is clearly stated.
Wasn’t my side, even I’m not that old.
Amendment XIV does not trump Amendments IX or X.
As a voting citizen, it is exactly my right to decide how the government operates, that’s what a citizen is after all. Despite your opinion and the opinion of the current regime, the government works for me, not the other way round.
As for acceptable citizens, an individual who cannot possibly give the oath of citizenship in good faith – clearly cannot be considered acceptable. Unless of course you don’t think oaths are of any import, which seems to be your point, as far as I can make out.
Keep digging, you haven’t found the bottom yet!
Rebar on May 5, 2010 at 3:21 PM
Those words do not mean what you think they mean.
That is not what I said. I said I choose not to speed.
You will fit in quite nicely with these folks.
Then, no. Now, yes. The result will be the same. You will lose.
Yes it does. You have beaten your horse to death.
You excercise that right by voting. Any other method is imposing your will upon others.
Peacefully, of course.
You clearly have desires to renounce your US citizenship based upon your beliefs.
You also have the right to do so. I shall keep my citizenship.
Peacefully, of course.
Keep tightening your belt. You still have a ways to go.
rukiddingme on May 5, 2010 at 3:41 PM
Perhaps you know what you’re talking about, no one else does.
People who want life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, who want to live under a government that obeys the Constitution and rule of law? I think you’re right.
Doubt it, in fact I’d expect the “blue” states to wholeheartedly celebrate. If not, the relative balance of power has dramatically changed since then.
No, it certainly does not. You seem to be as much of a constitutional scholar as 0bama is, ie not in the least.
Well thank you very much for allowing that.
What that has to do with my point you quoted, is a mystery. That I wish to exercise my inalienable rights under a government that operates under constitutional limits and rule of law, and if that government happens to consist of states that have separated from the union – lets just say it won’t be a hard decision to make.
Might want to start looking for some Northern real estate. Not too far North however.
Keep digging, you’re bound to hit paydirt one of these days.
Rebar on May 5, 2010 at 4:03 PM
Your definitions do not apply to me.
Agreed. America is a wonderful country. You get to choose with whom you assemble.
Yet, you still want to leave.
You seem to intentionally skip this section of Amendment XIV, Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You are all about obeying the Constitution and rule of law, except, when you are not.
This has been addressed. Three fingers point back at you.
No thanks.
My home is secure. My brothers to the North have detailed contigency plans should you find enough like-minded individuals to proceed with your plans.
My brothers’ plans are peaceful, of course.
Keep tightening, you still have a ways to go.
rukiddingme on May 5, 2010 at 4:21 PM
My final comment on the matter:
Your belt is too large, buy a smaller belt, then start tightening.
rukiddingme on May 5, 2010 at 4:32 PM
Your final comment makes about as much sense as your first – none.
Rebar on May 5, 2010 at 4:56 PM
Idiot Beck. Miranda is not “in” the Constitution and does not comprise the Constitution. If anything, the Constitution relates that Shahzad committed treason, sedition, Shahzad acting as a naturalized citizen enemy of the state.
maverick muse on May 5, 2010 at 5:27 PM
Kudos to Beck for recognizing the obvious. Unfortunately, in the emotional reaction of many, the Constitution only applies when it suits their interests. Such people are a danger to this country.
mountainaires on May 6, 2010 at 9:47 AM
I have mixed feelings about the Miranda warning. On the one hand, even an immigrant ought to know that it’s an extremely stupid idea to blurt out your evil plans and the things you’ve done in the presence of a police officer. Also, the Miranda warning seems to be an indicator of how our law has evolved into a mess of technicalities, where actual guilt or innocence is ignored in favor of whether or not a bunch of silly procedures where followed (See: William Ayers).
On the other hand, I can see how even a lot of American citizens might be unaware of their right to an attorney, especially when a bunch of cops have them cornered and are yelling questions at them.
R. Waher on May 6, 2010 at 8:10 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3