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:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3

Miranda isn’t part of the Constitution, but I agree with the point.

Daggett on May 4, 2010 at 9:31 AM

I guess you do shread the Treason portion of the Constituion though, huh Beck?

Napalotono is a joke of a ‘judge’….the founders certainly wouldn’t have mirandized a traitor, in fact they didn’t.

jp on May 4, 2010 at 9:32 AM

Daggett on May 4, 2010 at 9:31 AM

Concur

Johnnyreb on May 4, 2010 at 9:32 AM

We do have to treat American citizens properly if we’re going to maintain the moral edge in this idiotic debate over the detention of terrorists.

Red Cloud on May 4, 2010 at 9:32 AM

Beck’s right. He knows the difference between apples and oranges.

Mojave Mark on May 4, 2010 at 9:32 AM

I agree also. He is an American citizen. Slim as he is though.
L

letget on May 4, 2010 at 9:33 AM

The religion of peace!

Johan Klaus on May 4, 2010 at 9:33 AM

I agree as well. Citizens get the benefits of protections afforded by the Constitution. ILLEGALS do not. It’s a pretty easy concept, yet so hard to understand for liberals.

search4truth on May 4, 2010 at 9:33 AM

Daggett on May 4, 2010 at 9:31 AM

+1

mwdiver on May 4, 2010 at 9:33 AM

I agree with Beck on this. And while they are at it, they need to Mirandize whomever decided it was okay for Pakistani jihadis to naturalize.

flyfisher on May 4, 2010 at 9:33 AM

Agreed.

Also, along with YZY, I would like to thank in advance the judges and prosecution team that will be dealing with this situation in the future.

myrenovations on May 4, 2010 at 9:34 AM

Well, sometimes it is a suicide pact, gotta do what ya gotta do!

abobo on May 4, 2010 at 9:34 AM

Oh, and just to expand…even traitors that spill our most sensitive secrets get due process.

search4truth on May 4, 2010 at 9:35 AM

He’s a US citizen?
Absolutely.
All rights until the allegations are proven, regardless of any statements of admission.
Had he not been a citizen and had engaged in what essentially is an act of war against our nation, then no such protection.

Tom_OC on May 4, 2010 at 9:35 AM

Beck is right – although I agree with Daggett in Post #1 – Miranda is not part of the Constitution.

jake-the-goose on May 4, 2010 at 9:36 AM

Miranda isn’t part of the Constitution, but I agree with the point.

Daggett on May 4, 2010 at 9:31 AM

Miranda is the confirmation of the fifth and sixth amendments. How is that not constitutional?

MadisonConservative on May 4, 2010 at 9:36 AM

myrenovations on May 4, 2010 at 9:34 AM

Heh!

Cindy Munford on May 4, 2010 at 9:37 AM

He should be Mirandized and then charged with treason. He became a US citizens and then tried to commit an act of war against us. Throw the book at him.

sammypants on May 4, 2010 at 9:37 AM

He is a United States Citizen, he is entitled to those protections. Understand that Liberals, he is a US Citizen, those protections apply to him.

KSM was not a US Citizen and was furthermore engaged in hostilities and operations against the United States, therefore he falls under Military Law (which the Geneva and Hague Conventions we are a party to doesn’t give him much in the way of protection!)

It isn’t exactly rocket science.

Holger on May 4, 2010 at 9:37 AM

search4truth on May 4, 2010 at 9:33 AM

Agreed.

fesofee on May 4, 2010 at 9:37 AM

Question: Should he be treated differently if he had been captured in Afghanistan planting a IED on the road?

If so why?

Is it a matter of jurisdiction (where he was captured and citizenship) and less a matter of the nature of crime (terrorism/act of war)?

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 9:38 AM

Miranda v Arizona 384 US 436 (1966) is most certainly part of the Constitution until overturned by a future SCOTUS. Unless your opinion starts with the unconstitutionality of Marbury v Madison.

xkaydet65 on May 4, 2010 at 9:38 AM

He is a United States Citizen, he is entitled to those protections. Understand that Liberals, he is a US Citizen, those protections apply to him.

KSM was not a US Citizen and was furthermore engaged in hostilities and operations against the United States, therefore he falls under Military Law (which the Geneva and Hague Conventions we are a party to doesn’t give him much in the way of protection!)

It isn’t exactly rocket science.

Holger on May 4, 2010 at 9:37 AM

KSM (and other militants) are also not uniformed and operating under a flag – so the Geneva Conventions offer them even less protection than otherwise.

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 9:39 AM

MadisonConservative on May 4, 2010 at 9:36 AM

There is no requirement in the Constitution to tell defendants their rights. Miranda came about from a court case where the Supreme Court said that Law Enforcement must tell you your rights (and for good reason!).

Holger on May 4, 2010 at 9:39 AM

If he’s a US citizen, you Mirandize him. The Christmas Day eunuch bomber on the other hand….

Doughboy on May 4, 2010 at 9:40 AM

You can mirandize a traitor, and you can execute them for treason. Remember Timothy McVeigh.
I think this would comply with our Constitution.

Cybergeezer on May 4, 2010 at 9:42 AM

Is that RIGHT???
TWO or more acts to become terrorism???

WHEN did they slip THAT in????

May God help us.

golfmann on May 4, 2010 at 9:42 AM

The question remains: Why is Faisal Shahzad an American citizen?

Buy Danish on May 4, 2010 at 9:42 AM

Miranda v Arizona 384 US 436 (1966) is most certainly part of the Constitution until overturned by a future SCOTUS. Unless your opinion starts with the unconstitutionality of Marbury v Madison.

xkaydet65 on May 4, 2010 at 9:38 AM

There’s a difference between something being ‘constitutional’ as judged by a court and actually being part of the Constitution. I’m not saying that things that are judged constitutional can be ignored but there is a difference – the higher court or the Supreme Court can change precedence but it takes a vote of the Congress and States to change the constitution (though this is splitting hairs somewhat as the SCOTUS can interpret the Constitution in a manner that changes it’s application or meaning).

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 9:42 AM

I agree. If he’s a citizen, he gets those rights afforded him by the Constitution. If not, then no (cf UFA on Christmas Day).

If he is innocent, then let a jury decide. If he cannot be shown to be innocent, then he is likely guilty. Justice shall be done. This is too easy that it’s not even an argument.

ted c on May 4, 2010 at 9:42 AM

He renounced his citizenship the moment he declared Jihad against America, with the intent of indiscriminately bombing our cities.

Is what he did a Crime or an “ACT OF WAR”???????

Beck is making the lefts point for them on this, say if this guy was a citizen and managed to Dirty Bomb or tactical Nuke NYC, leaving next to nothing in its place and we caught him?

Still a Crime?

jp on May 4, 2010 at 9:43 AM

It is important to keep the two separate entities separate.
Citizen…non-citizen.
Of course the liberals who also buy into this, sets themselves up for Arizona hypocrisy.
So you will see them stating everyone should be Mirandized.

right2bright on May 4, 2010 at 9:44 AM

The question remains: Why is Faisal Shahzad an American citizen?

Buy Danish on May 4, 2010 at 9:42 AM

Great question.

sammypants on May 4, 2010 at 9:44 AM

That Beck. Man, he is a hater!

/sarc

mwdiver on May 4, 2010 at 9:45 AM

heck, let the guy remain silent. Then run the 20 sets of video that they have of him coming through the tunnel, driving down the street, climbing out of smoking vehicle and so on and so on. Let his lawyer watch it with him. After hours of seeing the evidence, simply ask, “Is there anything else we should know?”

In this case, the threshold of a reasonable doubt (ie, he “didn’t” drive that vehicle into Times Square) is pretty much jumped over fairly easy.

His defense is now left to mitigate the consequences that await him, IMO.

ted c on May 4, 2010 at 9:46 AM

The Miranda ruling was one of the worst in the history of the Supreme Court. It has caused great harm to this nation.

Really Right on May 4, 2010 at 9:47 AM

Holger on May 4, 2010 at 9:39 AM

Do you think that law enforcement officials should be disregarding SCOTUS rulings they disagree with? Even if you disagree with Miranda, that’s the current ruling of the Supreme Court, which is in fact mentioned in the Constitution.

tneloms on May 4, 2010 at 9:49 AM

The question remains: Why is Faisal Shahzad an American citizen?

Buy Danish on May 4, 2010 at 9:42 AM

From rightpundits.com:
“He was recently naturalized as a U.S. citizen under the Obama administration’s lenient open door policy.”

Cybergeezer on May 4, 2010 at 9:50 AM

The WH is wishing it was a Senior Citizen Tea Partier.

kingsjester on May 4, 2010 at 9:50 AM

What’s great about this is Shahzas should end up in a U.S. prison rather than Guantanamo where they put Halal chocolate on the prisoners’ pillows after making their beds with 1500 thread count Egyptian cotton sheets.

flyfisher on May 4, 2010 at 9:50 AM

So this isn’t a War, therefor this guy isn’t an Enemy Combatant?

Therefor it must be merely a Crime, therefor Mirandize, Lawyer-up and get treated like any other criminal.

ACLU and Jihadi’s when this important distinction

jp on May 4, 2010 at 9:52 AM

flyfisher on May 4, 2010 at 9:50 AM

Hey, buddy! Do you still have a house?

kingsjester on May 4, 2010 at 9:52 AM

In principle, I agree, but a state of war would fix this … This would be classified as treason, tried and executed as a spy.

tarpon on May 4, 2010 at 9:53 AM

Absolutely Mirandize him.

Then torture him to find out what/who else he knows.

Then execute him.

EnglishMike on May 4, 2010 at 9:53 AM

I think that we should authorize cruel and unusual punishment for this bomber: make him hang with Obama and listen to him blabber all day. Then make him give Michelle foot massages!

search4truth on May 4, 2010 at 9:54 AM

Like someone has already said.Mirandized someone is not part of the Constitution.Also the Constitution is not a suicide pack no matter what Beck says.

thmcbb on May 4, 2010 at 9:54 AM

Also, along with YZY, I would like to thank in advance the judges and prosecution team that will be dealing with this situation in the future.

myrenovations on May 4, 2010 at 9:34 AM

And let me be the first to thank the studio and broadcast crew at the Beck show; without them, we wouldn’t have seen this exchange of ideas.

Midas on May 4, 2010 at 9:55 AM

Once he gets mirandized he gets lawyered up by the ACLU, game over.

jp on May 4, 2010 at 9:55 AM

So this isn’t a War, therefor this guy isn’t an Enemy Combatant?

Therefor it must be merely a Crime, therefor Mirandize, Lawyer-up and get treated like any other criminal.

ACLU and Jihadi’s when this important distinction

jp on May 4, 2010 at 9:52 AM

I wouldn’t worry too much. I’m sure Obama and Holder will give us the KSM guarantee: A fair trial followed by a hanging. =)

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 9:55 AM

Read him his rights and then go Dana Walsh on him.

JammieWearingFool on May 4, 2010 at 9:55 AM

Midas on May 4, 2010 at 9:55 AM

It was actually the Fox and Friends crew, but point well taken.

kingsjester on May 4, 2010 at 9:56 AM

He should be Mirandized and then charged with treason. He became a US citizens and then tried to commit an act of war against us. Throw the book at him.

sammypants on May 4, 2010 at 9:37 AM

This would certainly seem to fit the definition of treason pretty well. Will be interesting to see if Holderbama go that route or not, and what reasoning is given if not…

Midas on May 4, 2010 at 9:57 AM

He should be Mirandized and then charged with treason. He became a US citizens and then tried to commit an act of war against us. Throw the book at him.

sammypants on May 4, 2010 at 9:37 AM

exactly. We are at war, this is treason.

NickelAndDime on May 4, 2010 at 9:57 AM

“You have the right to reside at Guantanamo Bay. You have the right to be sleep deprived. You have the right to listen to loud music. You have the right to stress positions. If you waive those rights, you have the right to be waterboarded.”

:)

Abelard on May 4, 2010 at 9:57 AM

tneloms on May 4, 2010 at 9:49 AM

I could care less. I know my rights before-hand, if someone didn’t pay attention in Government class, then they deserve to get screwed over by the police.

Another interesting fact, Ernesto Arturo Miranda was guilty as sin.

Holger on May 4, 2010 at 9:57 AM

I submit, that no muslem can be a legitimate naturalized citizen.

The oath of citizenship:

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 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.

To be a muslem, means you believe in the sovereignty of the ummah, the worldwide islamic nation, which divides the world into only two nations – the world of islam and the world of war.

To be a muslem, means you believe in sharia law as the ultimate law, which no law of man may supersede. Sharia law is the polar opposite of the US Constitution and the rest of the founding documents of this nation.

Any and all muslem who swore this oath, has done so in bad faith, and should not be considered American citizens.

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 9:58 AM

It was actually the Fox and Friends crew, but point well taken.

kingsjester on May 4, 2010 at 9:56 AM

I humbly stand corrected.

Midas on May 4, 2010 at 9:58 AM

Read him his rights and then go Dana Walsh on him.

JammieWearingFool on May 4, 2010 at 9:55 AM

Bingo!

cubachi on May 4, 2010 at 9:58 AM

Is it true that the terrorist Shahzad donated to the Obama campaign and was a democrat? I heard it at rightpundits.com.

nyx on May 4, 2010 at 9:59 AM

Once he gets mirandized he gets lawyered up by the ACLU, game over.

jp on May 4, 2010 at 9:55 AM

I share some of your concerns. But I am also not comfortable if the government can easily set aside my rights as a citizen because it simply deems me a ‘terrorist’. There’s got to me some middle ground between the two.

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 9:59 AM

He has enough troubles to contend with without having to worry that the next 9/11 will happen on his watch.

Waiting for unseen’s apology for libeling the white guy caught on video on the wrong street looking at the wrong SUV.

crickets

chemman on May 4, 2010 at 9:59 AM

We are in a war on terror…he is a terrorist/enemy combatant…thus he committed an act of war on the USA…..military tribunal?

nazo311 on May 4, 2010 at 10:02 AM

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.

After Booth’s death (April 26, 1865), Mudd was arrested and charged with conspiracy to murder Abraham Lincoln.

On May 1, 1865, President Andrew Johnson ordered the formation of a nine-man military commission to try the conspirators.

Johan Klaus on May 4, 2010 at 10:02 AM

Beck is 100% right about this. This US citizen is a suspect, who hasn’t been convicted of anything yet. If the evidence proves his guilt in a court, then he loses many of his rights, and indeed may be stripped of his citizenship if not his very life. But today he is a US citizen just like, say, the Duke Lacrosse players that so many had convicted in the media before the truth came out.

The Monster on May 4, 2010 at 10:03 AM

From rightpundits.com:
“He was recently naturalized as a U.S. citizen under the Obama administration’s lenient open door policy.”

Cybergeezer on May 4, 2010 at 9:50 AM

Among other things, I’m curious about the thoroughness of the F.B.I. background checks which are required before one can become a naturalized citizen.

Buy Danish on May 4, 2010 at 10:04 AM

Miranda isn’t part of the Constitution, but I agree with the point.
Daggett on May 4, 2010 at 9:31 AM

As a philosophical matter, I hate exclusionary rules (which is essentially what Miranda is) because they punish the victims of crime and the public for civil rights violations committed by law enforcement agents. How many times does a criminal go scot-free because a cop did a search without probable cause, or because the perp’s confession is ruled involuntary because he didn’t get Mirandized, or whatever? That might have some negative consequences for the cop’s career, but nothing huge. So who really loses? The victim, who watches the defendant escape without punishment, and the community, who has a criminal in their midst who they cannot punish.

But, this is neither the time nor the place for a first principles debate. Beck is right: you have to give this guy the full panoply of rights you’d afford to any criminal defendant, and it’s not fair to attack Obama for doing so.

Outlander on May 4, 2010 at 10:05 AM

I’m all for this piece of dirt being Mirandized.

With a billy club.

Shy Guy on May 4, 2010 at 10:05 AM

So the Duke lacrosse players were terrorists?

Johan Klaus on May 4, 2010 at 10:06 AM

Became a citizen April 2009, left for pahkeeestan in May. Just returned….Why on Gods green earth didn’t that set off any alarms?

sandee on May 4, 2010 at 10:06 AM

Question: Should he be treated differently if he had been captured in Afghanistan planting a IED on the road?

If so why?

Is it a matter of jurisdiction (where he was captured and citizenship) and less a matter of the nature of crime (terrorism/act of war)?

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 9:38 AM


No it isn’t different if an American citizen is captured overseas in a war zone. John Walker Lind (an American citizen) was captured in Afghanistan. He was shipped back to the US, mirandized and stood trial in a civilian court, receiving 20 years. He is an American citizen and was allowed the constitutional rights afforded to him regardles of place of capture. Constitutional rights all depends on citizenship status.

DoS_Conservative on May 4, 2010 at 10:08 AM

Became a citizen April 2009, left for pahkeeestan in May. Just returned….Why on Gods green earth didn’t that set off any alarms?

sandee on May 4, 2010 at 10:06 AM

I know. I wonder if it is a new Al-Qaeda tactic to have their Operatives become United States Citizens and then carry out their attacks.

Holger on May 4, 2010 at 10:08 AM

As a citizen, he is entitled to all the rights of a citizen, unlike the denizens of Gitmo.

Vashta.Nerada on May 4, 2010 at 10:08 AM

Johan Klaus on May 4, 2010 at 10:02 AM

history and facts do not matter.

the Left and ACLU have won this battle for the Jihadis under the lie of “Constitutionalism” pushed by Scoundrels like Ron Paul who made these points in 2008.

Jihad is a Crime, you can not renounce your American Citizenship by committing war against the Country in hopes of toppling it and replacing eventually with Shariah Law.

This is now what Criminals do, if caught they get ACLU lawyers and no Military Tribunals.

jp on May 4, 2010 at 10:08 AM

If you plan to prosecute as a criminal, Mirandize him. If you want intelligence and plan to hold him as a combatant, then don’t. Whichever is the case, his citizenship should be revoked.

Wino on May 4, 2010 at 10:08 AM

Beck is right. Arrrg.

khacha on May 4, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Became a citizen April 2009, left for pahkeeestan in May. Just returned….Why on Gods green earth didn’t that set off any alarms?

sandee on May 4, 2010 at 10:06 AM

Janet is a busy woman. Don’t be bothering her with petty details.

katy the mean old lady on May 4, 2010 at 10:10 AM

SHAHZAD!

drjohn on May 4, 2010 at 10:11 AM

flyfisher on May 4, 2010 at 9:50 AM

Hey, buddy! Do you still have a house?

kingsjester on May 4, 2010 at 9:52 AM

Hey there! Yes, we lost a few shingles but made it fine–my home is on high ground. How about you? Did you take cover through all of those tornado alarms?

flyfisher on May 4, 2010 at 10:11 AM

I am a conservative. Beck is a dope.

sheriff246 on May 4, 2010 at 10:11 AM

Beck is 100% right about this. This US citizen is a suspect, who hasn’t been convicted of anything yet. If the evidence proves his guilt in a court, then he loses many of his rights, and indeed may be stripped of his citizenship if not his very life. But today he is a US citizen just like, say, the Duke Lacrosse players that so many had convicted in the media before the truth came out.

The Monster on May 4, 2010 at 10:03 AM

What if he’d been found setting up an IED in Afghanistan or captured after having fired on and/or killed American soldiers in Afghanistan (or American civilian contractors)?

A military court is still a court to determine guilt.

I’m not saying his rights should be stripped but I’m wondering what the proper venue is for determining his guilt and meting out a punishment. If we hold that Americans committing acts of terror and war on American soil is treated just like any other domestic crime then we should at the very least acknowledge that his is something our enemies will exploit (e.g., what if KSM were American?).

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 10:11 AM

You’re right about Janet, Katy.. she was too busy investigating tea party terrorists to be bothered with this.

sandee on May 4, 2010 at 10:11 AM

Acts of war committed by US citizens have been legally excluded from the notification of rights legal regime for over 70 years. You folks who reflexively say yes, Mirandiz him and give him the right not not to speak clearly do not believe that we are at war with Islamists.

Beck and Napolitano don’t understand the orginal intent of the Constitution, they are part of the Ron Paul school of foreign policy. And the idea that not giving an enemy combatant (that is what he is legally) a lawyer is shredding the Constitution is idiotic.

What if instead of a crappy car bomb he has released a biological warfare agents and we had 50,000 dead and more dying every day? Would the right thing to do be to get him a lawyer?? Are you kidding. The fact is that he is part of a pirate army of terrorists and by all international and US law we have every right to interrogate him at will for as long as we want until the war is over

georgealbert on May 4, 2010 at 10:11 AM

My initial instinct was with Beck and Napolitano but at what point does a US citizen become an enemy combatant? There were US citizens who went and fought for our enemies in WWII. They certainly weren’t mirandized or given civilian due process when captured. In this war, the battlefield is as much the streets of US cities as it is a conventional one half way across the globe. I’m of two minds on this one.

jnelchef on May 4, 2010 at 10:12 AM

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 9:58 AM

You are 100% correct of course, the founders would’ve agreed with you also…but that is beside the point.

The Left has so dominated the misinformation here and set the terms of the Political Correctness rules that they have totally WON THIS DEBATE.

Evidence for the win? Idiots like Beck above and Fox giving an Anarcho-Libertarian of the Lew Rockwell variety, respect and claim as a Judge.

Jihad is a crime, anyone can be a citizen regardless if they’ve declared War on the USA with total intent on Toppling it for Global Sharia Law/Rule.

jp on May 4, 2010 at 10:14 AM

You’re right about Janet, Katy.. she was too busy investigating tea party terrorists to be bothered with this.

sandee on May 4, 2010 at 10:11 AM

She’s about the most useless thing I’ve ever see.. Blass her heart.

katy the mean old lady on May 4, 2010 at 10:14 AM

We need more Muslim immigrants!

That’s what we need to take away from this attack.

Otherwise they will only hate us more.

And we should never read the Koran.

Otherwise we might learn unpleasant truths about Islam.

The risk of increased Islamic Terror is worth the price of more Mohammedan immigration!

We must die, if need be, to prove our good intentions to the Muslim world!

They are better than us, after all.

Just ask them.

profitsbeard on May 4, 2010 at 10:16 AM

Acts of war committed by US citizens have been legally excluded from the notification of rights legal regime for over 70 years. You folks who reflexively say yes, Mirandiz him and give him the right not not to speak clearly do not believe that we are at war with Islamists.

Beck and Napolitano don’t understand the orginal intent of the Constitution, they are part of the Ron Paul school of foreign policy. And the idea that not giving an enemy combatant (that is what he is legally) a lawyer is shredding the Constitution is idiotic.

What if instead of a crappy car bomb he has released a biological warfare agents and we had 50,000 dead and more dying every day? Would the right thing to do be to get him a lawyer?? Are you kidding. The fact is that he is part of a pirate army of terrorists and by all international and US law we have every right to interrogate him at will for as long as we want until the war is over

georgealbert on May 4, 2010 at 10:11 AM

again, all true but truth has obviously lost this debate and all the History and Original Intent of the Founders with it to Scoundrels within the GOP, led by the Paultard.

jp on May 4, 2010 at 10:16 AM

I love this – liberal heads all over America are going to explode this morning watching Glenn Beck defend the constitutional rights of a suspected terrorist.

Of course, he is setting up the next round of questions – how and why did this man get naturalized?

And will our tax money pay for his lawyer?

rockmom on May 4, 2010 at 10:16 AM

No it isn’t different if an American citizen is captured overseas in a war zone. John Walker Lind (an American citizen) was captured in Afghanistan. He was shipped back to the US, mirandized and stood trial in a civilian court, receiving 20 years. He is an American citizen and was allowed the constitutional rights afforded to him regardles of place of capture. Constitutional rights all depends on citizenship status.

DoS_Conservative on May 4, 2010 at 10:08 AM

But wasn’t Lindh interrogated by our intelligence officials etc before being shipped here and given a laywer, his trial etc? I don’t believe the same rules were applied to him that would be applied to a murderer who is a citizen (or Shazad for that matter).

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 10:16 AM

“You have the right to reside at Guantanamo Bay. You have the right to be sleep deprived. You have the right to listen to loud music. You have the right to stress positions. If you waive those rights, you have the right to be waterboarded.”

:)

Abelard on May 4, 2010 at 9:57 AM

Thread winner!

FloridaBill on May 4, 2010 at 10:18 AM

Shahzad, 30, is a naturalized U.S. citizen and had recently returned from a five-month trip to Pakistan, where he had a wife, according to law enforcement officials who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation into the failed car bombing.

Good grief, how was he naturalized?
He spent nearly five months after becoming naturalized in a foreign country and on top of that, he got a mail order bride residing in Pakistan. Good grief.

nyx on May 4, 2010 at 10:19 AM

Obama to Shahzad: “Two words for you: predator drones. You will never see it coming. You think I’m joking?”

faraway on May 4, 2010 at 10:21 AM

He should be treated as a criminal suspect until the investigation determines that his actions were part of the jihadi war on the United States. Then he should be turned over to the DoD, fully interrogated, and then tried for treason by a military tribunal.

tommylotto on May 4, 2010 at 10:23 AM

Beck is wrong, the Judge is right.

The Constitution applies to everyone within the borders, “people”, and all get the protections thereof.

Onager on May 4, 2010 at 10:23 AM

the guy is a CITIZEN he deserves all rights and responsibility that that status demands.

Anyone that things otherwise is an idiot and has no idea what citizenship means

unseen on May 4, 2010 at 10:25 AM

I could care less. I know my rights before-hand, if someone didn’t pay attention in Government class, then they deserve to get screwed over by the police.

Another interesting fact, Ernesto Arturo Miranda was guilty as sin.

Holger on May 4, 2010 at 9:57 AM

This is not a response to what I said. I understand that you think Miranda is dumb as a policy and was wrongly decided by the Supreme Court. However, that is how it was decided. Do you think authorities should disregard Supreme Court decisions that they disagree with? What does the Constitution say about the authority that Supreme Court decisions carry?

tneloms on May 4, 2010 at 10:26 AM

Of course there is no reason to “Mirandize” anyone, citizen or not.

Far too many people confuse the Constitution with a group of nine old men in dresses. They are actually not the same thing at all.

logis on May 4, 2010 at 10:27 AM

He should be treated as a criminal suspect until the investigation determines that his actions were part of the jihadi war on the United States. Then he should be turned over to the DoD, fully interrogated, and then tried for treason by a military tribunal.

tommylotto on May 4, 2010 at 10:23 AM

This seems reasonable. Though who exactly gets to decide that the investigation as determined that a suspect is a war criminal or enemy combatant and needs to be turned over to the DoD?

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 10:29 AM

the guy is a CITIZEN he deserves all rights and responsibility that that status demands.

unseen on May 4, 2010 at 10:25 AM

If he lied on his oath of citizenship, is he still a citizen?

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 10:29 AM

I just hope they didn’t ask for his papers, please.

faraway on May 4, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3