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

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

The Constitution doesn’t actually matter anymore, so yeah, ignore at will.

Holger on May 4, 2010 at 10:30 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

The solution isn’t selectively removing the rights of citizens, the solution is more stringent immigration policy. Pakistan, no matter how much we crow publicly about them being a “great ally,” should be an immediate red flag and should be cause for a thorough backgrounnd check and a 1-year freeze on naturalization. If you’re from Pakistan, we find zero links to any terrorist groups and you still want to come here a year later, then you can naturalize.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 4, 2010 at 10:30 AM

With all due respect to Judge Napolitano and Mr. Beck, I disagree. The Constitution, even as distorted by subsequent court rulings, does not require that this suspect be Mirandized.

I would suggest that the security of the people of our country demands that we know what the suspect knows, particularly about any other possible plots or terrorist actors. The importance of a later successful prosecution of the suspect in federal court pales in comparison to the importance of protecting the safety and security of our people.

It would be entirely lawful to declare the suspect to be an enemy combatant, at which point Miranda warnings become irrelevant. (Yes, American citizens can be declared to be enemy combatants. The fact that he is suspected of committing criminal acts of terrorism on our soil is not dispositive. And I would point out there is ample evidence already suggesting that the suspect engaged in training and planning with known enemy combatants overseas, outside the country.) Investigators would have greater latitude interrogating the suspect, although certainly they do not have available many highly effective methods formerly in use. As an enemy combatant, the suspect is in the jurisdiction of military tribunals, where due process is preserved but evidence revealed by the suspect is not automatically rendered inadmissible merely because he was not given a Miranda warning. (The Miranda case and its progeny do not apply outside civilian jurisdiction.)

This is WAR people, and it is long past time we sent the message to our enemies and their sympathizers that our conduct in this war will be guided by our best interests, and not the concerns over “optics” by people who would bring latte to a knife fight.

novaculus on May 4, 2010 at 10:31 AM

The Constitution:

Section. 3.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

and Congress did exactly that with the Military Commissions Law they passed.

So Beck, Hotair, ACLU….was this an Act of Treason/War or was it a CRIME????

jp on May 4, 2010 at 10:32 AM

Fine, miradize him. He is now guilty of treason against his country as well as the remaining assortment of charges.

Americannodash on May 4, 2010 at 10:32 AM

A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.
-Thomas Jefferson

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 10:34 AM

So Beck, Hotair, ACLU….was this an Act of Treason/War or was it a CRIME????

jp on May 4, 2010 at 10:32 AM

So once convicted of treason, he can be stripped of his citizenship (and his life). Before he is convicted, he retains the rights of any other US citizen.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 4, 2010 at 10:35 AM

When an airliner leaves the gate, are they still under U.S. legal jurisdiction? Or would the laws of the airline’s home country apply?

hawksruleva on May 4, 2010 at 10:35 AM

A 40 year old white guy named Shahzad. Who knew?

faraway on May 4, 2010 at 10:35 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

+1

jp on May 4, 2010 at 10:36 AM

This is WAR people, and it is long past time we sent the message to our enemies and their sympathizers that our conduct in this war will be guided by our best interests, and not the concerns over “optics” by people who would bring latte to a knife fight.

novaculus on May 4, 2010 at 10:31 AM

Well said.

hawksruleva on May 4, 2010 at 10:37 AM

Silly question.

Of course you do that – what do they think this is, the Old Progressive Soviet Union or North Korea?

Chip on May 4, 2010 at 10:38 AM

Tom Clancy points out in one his books that the US government is the oldest continuous government in the world. I do not know if that is completely true or not, but it sure is a ringing endorsement for our Constitutional form of getting along. We violate that at great risk.

GnuBreed on May 4, 2010 at 10:39 AM

Mirandize him right after Jack Bauer talks to him.

SurferDoc on May 4, 2010 at 10:41 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 law enforcement officials would present their evidence that they collected by constitutional means to a military tribunal set up for the purpose — such as the hearings that were conducted for the Gitmo guys. The case would be presented by law enforcement, but the decision would be made by military. We are talking about war and national defense, right?

tommylotto on May 4, 2010 at 10:41 AM

A 40 year old white guy named Shahzad. Who knew?

faraway on May 4, 2010 at 10:35 AM

Shazad is a white guy. Pakistanis, as well as Afghans and Iranians, are Indo-European. Which means they are cousins of Celts, Slavs and Germans among others. Where do you think the “Indo” in Indo-Europeans comes from?

Here’s a news flash: There’s no such thing as a white race.

lonesomecharlie on May 4, 2010 at 10:44 AM

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

unseen on May 4, 2010 at 10:25 AM

Spell check.

Johan Klaus on May 4, 2010 at 10:45 AM

If he lied on his oath of citizenship, is he still a citizen?
Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 10:29 AM

But who gets to decide that he lied? You? Me? No, a court has to do that, after he’s given an opportunity to be heard. He is a citizen until he is stripped of citizenship through lawful court process.

Outlander on May 4, 2010 at 10:49 AM

lonesomecharlie: That would depend on what anthropologist you agree with. For some, the Nordic People would be very white and non Indo-European. Their origins are believed to be Southern Sweden and Denmark and would included everyone we think of as Anglo-Saxon, including the Normans (Northmen who turned into the French, gasp!)

SurferDoc on May 4, 2010 at 10:51 AM

After the Mirandizing, if someone is found to be waging war against the United States their citizenship rights should be forfeited and they then need to be remanded into military custody for a treason trial and the ultimate punishment if found guilty.

Otherwise we are pu$$yfooting into oblivion.

profitsbeard on May 4, 2010 at 10:52 AM

The law enforcement officials would present their evidence that they collected by constitutional means to a military tribunal set up for the purpose — such as the hearings that were conducted for the Gitmo guys. The case would be presented by law enforcement, but the decision would be made by military. We are talking about war and national defense, right?
tommylotto on May 4, 2010 at 10:41 AM

We are talking about national defense…but we’re also talking about the nature of the relationship between government and citizens. I’m sympathetic to both camps – and you suggestion seemed like a good compromise.

I’m not a lawyer but it seems to me that turning someone over to DoD and military tribunal would have to be the decision of a federal judge (unless the DoJ has this authority granted by Congress in the Military Commissions Law or somewhere else). I don’t like the idea of the military deciding where the trial takes place (and I suspect the military wouldn’t like this either).

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 10:55 AM

Federal authorities arrested a U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent Monday night at New York’s JFK International Airport in connection with Saturday’s attempted Times Square car bombing.

US Citizen’s even those who are accused of the highest crimes are afforded the protections of the United States Constitution. Sorry, but Beck is absolutely right on this. Even a treasonous person such as this Pakistani who is a Citizen of the United States of America gets all rights and immunities granted.

astonerii on May 4, 2010 at 10:56 AM

Spell check.

Johan Klaus on May 4, 2010 at 10:45 AM

Oh if only. things WAS spelled correctly. :) Too fast fingers not enough proof reading. the curse of my active mind.

unseen on May 4, 2010 at 10:57 AM

But who gets to decide that he lied? You? Me? No, a court has to do that, after he’s given an opportunity to be heard. He is a citizen until he is stripped of citizenship through lawful court process.

Outlander on May 4, 2010 at 10:49 AM

I submit, that being a muslem or subsequent conversion to islam, is de facto repudiation of the oath of citizenship.

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 10:58 AM

When an airliner leaves the gate, are they still under U.S. legal jurisdiction? Or would the laws of the airline’s home country apply?

hawksruleva on May 4, 2010 at 10:35 AM

I’m not a lawyer so I’m just guessing, but I would say that as long as the airplane is on US soil, US laws apply. The runway is US soil. Anything to the contrary would be utterly untenable in terms of enforcement.

ProfessorMiao on May 4, 2010 at 11:00 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


Yes, he was until it was determined he was and American citizen. When captured on the battlefield, they had no idea who he was. Once he was identified as an American citizen, he was shipped back to the US and the pervue was transferred from military to civilian and given the same rules applied to a traitor. He maybe a traitor, but he still has constitutional rights as an American citizen.

DoS_Conservative on May 4, 2010 at 11:00 AM

I submit, that being a muslem or subsequent conversion to islam, is de facto repudiation of the oath of citizenship.

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 10:58 AM

I would submit that you’re an idiot.

ProfessorMiao on May 4, 2010 at 11:00 AM

I submit, that being a muslem or subsequent conversion to islam, is de facto repudiation of the oath of citizenship.

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 10:58 AM

That’s simply nuts. We have many honorable citizens who are Muslims serving in our armed forces. Most Mustlims are not radical jihadi’s.

If you really think that our government should be deciding someones citizenship status bases solely on their membership in a religion then you are for shredding the Constitution.

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 11:00 AM

I submit, that being a muslem or subsequent conversion to islam, is de facto repudiation of the oath of citizenship.

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 10:58 AM

Conversion to a disliked religion immediately makes one a terrorist and constitutes revocation of citizenship…

Yeah…there’s no way that could go horribly wrong…

Dark-Star on May 4, 2010 at 11:01 AM

So the Duke lacrosse players were terrorists?

No, you moron, they were US Citizens that were charged with crimes, just like this guy will be as soon as he’s arraigned.

The Monster on May 4, 2010 at 11:02 AM

After the Mirandizing, if someone is found to be waging war against the United States their citizenship rights should be forfeited and they then need to be remanded into military custody for a treason trial and the ultimate punishment if found guilty.

Otherwise we are pu$$yfooting into oblivion.

profitsbeard on May 4, 2010 at 10:52 AM

The only mechanism for stripping citizenship would be a conviction in in the civilian criminal court system of an offense punishable by such.

Count to 10 on May 4, 2010 at 11:04 AM

If you really think that our government should be deciding someones citizenship status bases solely on their membership in a religion then you are for shredding the Constitution.

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Not a religion, but a hostile ideology in direct conflict with the Constitution and the founding principles of this country. You simply cannot swear an oath to the Constitution and be a muslem – they are polar opposites in every way.

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Car bombs typically do not fit in the civil criminal court, save for mafia hits that target the individual inside the car, not the surrounding population. The mafia can distinguish between the two and do so, and remain in civil court.

The act of targeting your fellow countrymen for death with a weapon of war is an act of war against your fellow countrymen. Acts of war fall under the laws of war. As far as I can tell there is no double jeopardy between military and civilian venues: you can be tried in either or both, but the action involved determines original venue. Preference is given to the laws of war for they are the attempts of civilized people to reduce the horrors of war, and yet those who wage war contrary to those simple concepts are unable to do the minimal things necessary to be called civilized.

The negative liberty of war of the Nation is within each of us and we agree to invest it in the Nation State for our oversight and to use it for protection of us all. Those who reclaim that negative liberty step from the confines of civilization and reduce themselves afresh to the Law of Nature. Terrorism is a tactic in Private War utilizing the negative liberty of warfare to one’s own ends, and those who have used it fall into the same category: pirates, brigands, armies of thieves…their callings vary, their actions disturbingly similar. If we cannot uphold this primary understanding on why we have the Laws of War then we, in our attempt to be extremely civilized, then lose the point of civilization itself and are nearer to the Law of Nature than any concept of civil law. We have a civil crime of piracy for those who, like Capt. Morgan, returned to society to clear his name… and for those that could be easily caputred when not on their rampages. Thus society welcomes those who atone for their sins against it, and those too pitiful as creatures to run from their actions. Law is to ensure that protection is given to those who abide by it or who can no longer run from it… those on the run are seeking to make further war against us.

War crimes used to be seen as a higher type of crime than mere mass murder: this was not of degree but of kind, and that difference in kind makes a grave difference between war waged under Nature’s Law and a civil crime of horrific extent. If we would but use the piracy codes to understand this difference, and go after those who support our Private enemies, we would be better off. And for those caught making war against us, we should do as Lincoln told the troops to do. We, being less civilized than Lincoln, can only stand in awe at the shadow he cast… and shiver for ourselves being unequal to the task of standing on his shoulders in this realm.

ajacksonian on May 4, 2010 at 11:06 AM

Conversion to a disliked religion immediately makes one a terrorist and constitutes revocation of citizenship…

Yeah…there’s no way that could go horribly wrong…

Dark-Star on May 4, 2010 at 11:01 AM

I think he is referring to religious oaths that appear to supersede citizen oaths. Taken to the extreme, any Christian oath that swears allegiance to a Church above the State would also warrant revocation of citizenship under such a rule.

Count to 10 on May 4, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Not a religion, but a hostile ideology in direct conflict with the Constitution and the founding principles of this country. You simply cannot swear an oath to the Constitution and be a muslem – they are polar opposites in every way.
Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 11:05 AM

So all the muslims serving in our armed forces are traitors to the Constitution? I’d like to see you square that circle.

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 11:09 AM

lonesomecharlie: That would depend on what anthropologist you agree with. For some, the Nordic People would be very white and non Indo-European. Their origins are believed to be Southern Sweden and Denmark and would included everyone we think of as Anglo-Saxon, including the Normans (Northmen who turned into the French, gasp!)

SurferDoc on May 4, 2010 at 10:51 AM

At least from a linguistic point of view, the Nordic languages are well-accepted as Germanic languages, which are a sub-family of Indo-European languages.

DarkCurrent on May 4, 2010 at 11:09 AM

(crawls out of self-ban, and climbs on soapbox):

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

I agree with that statement, but Conservatives don’t understand it either-best example: HR 2499 (go to the blog for the House date)

(gets off soapbox and crawls back into self-ban)

ProudPalinFan on May 4, 2010 at 11:10 AM

You simply cannot swear an oath to the Constitution and be a muslem – they are polar opposites in every way.

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 11:05 AM

I suppose there is some anecdotal evidence in favor of that, but can you back it up with something concrete? Can you show that the oaths Muslims swear are in direct conflict with citizenship? If so, I would be all ears — I don’t know enough about Islam to say.

Count to 10 on May 4, 2010 at 11:10 AM

I had watched this exchange when it happened this morning. Kilmeade did not at all looked happy. At one point, I heard him make a grunting noise in disdain to what Beck was saying.

I would suspect that we will see more such incidents with either natural born citizens or naturalized citizens since they would be afforded more protections under U.S. law. Still, that doesn’t trump my desire to give terrorists a good beatin’.

madmonkphotog on May 4, 2010 at 11:14 AM

I watched the segment this morning, and it wasn’t “a debate”. They agreed on virtually all aspects of the discussion.

Jaibones on May 4, 2010 at 11:15 AM

Maybe that’s why they never identified the others who were also removed from the plane, they weren’t citizens. Hopefully they are safely ensconced at Club Gitmo. Forggidaboutit. Big Sis ain’t that smart.

Kissmygrits on May 4, 2010 at 11:17 AM

SurferDoc on May 4, 2010 at 10:51 AM

I don’t know where you got that information but it’s nonsensical. I highly recommend that you read The Horse, The Wheel and Language by David Anthony. Its a good start on understanding the origins of Europeans. It also has a wealth of data on 5o years of anthropological research and excavation in the USSR. Some of their discoveries are remarkable, i.e. 6,000 year old IRON implements.

lonesomecharlie on May 4, 2010 at 11:17 AM

Try him, then HANG him.

GarandFan on May 4, 2010 at 11:21 AM

I think he is referring to religious oaths that appear to supersede citizen oaths. Taken to the extreme, any Christian oath that swears allegiance to a Church above the State would also warrant revocation of citizenship under such a rule.
Count to 10 on May 4, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Of course it would. IF Christians were such extremists that we advocated some kind of Christian version of Shaira law.

But, as it turns out, different religions have different beliefs. Go figure.

logis on May 4, 2010 at 11:25 AM

I don’t know enough about Islam to say.

Count to 10 on May 4, 2010 at 11:10 AM

An unfortunately common problem.

Islam is, primarily, a political movement, with an exceedingly thin veneer of religiosity. The clearly stated goal of islam is the submission of the entire world and all the peoples in it, to sharia law. No law of man can supersede sharia law, ie allah’s law, to suggest or claim otherwise is the gravest sin in islam.

Sharia law is an all-encompassing set of laws, rules, and government which can only be described as fascist – it is literally the opposite of our Constitution specifically and Western society in general. All muslems are commanded to work toward that goal of supremacy – that is called jihad.

To be a muslem means to submit, and to force others to submit, to sharia law. Thus no one can, in good conscience, be a muslem and to swear an oath to protect the Constitution. It is simply impossible to do both.

Islam has a solution though – al-Taqiyya. This is an islamic principle where muslems are allowed, in fact encouraged, to lie to the infidel if it advances the cause of islam. When a muslem swears an oath to “protect and defend” the Constitution – they are simply using al-Taqiyya ie lying, to advance their cause.

Thus any and all oaths sworn by muslems on the Constitution is null and void, a lie to advance the cause of islam.

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Car bombs typically do not fit in the civil criminal court, save for mafia hits that target the individual inside the car, not the surrounding population. The mafia can distinguish between the two and do so, and remain in civil court.
ajacksonian on May 4, 2010 at 11:06 AM

But even then, why do we have to be quite so persnickety?

Would it really mean the end of the Republic if the Mafia had to be just a tiny bit more circumspect about their means of execution?

logis on May 4, 2010 at 11:30 AM

lonesomecharlie and Dark Current: Stop for a minute and consider that you may have been fed a line of liberal academic horseshit. Linguistic theories are as ideological as they are scientific and full of speculation. Skull shape studies are more scientific but have been compromised by some of the quackery of the 1800s. The whole field was nearly ruined by Nazi politicizing the science for their own twisted reasons. It was impossible to have an honest discussion on the subject until just a few years ago, and if you aren’t careful, you will still get call a racist.

Bottom line: Nobody knows where whiet people came from but the case for a Nordic origin is as good as any other. It is just that it is politically incorrect since the time of the Nazis.

SurferDoc on May 4, 2010 at 11:31 AM

Can you show that the oaths Muslims swear are in direct conflict with citizenship? If so, I would be all ears — I don’t know enough about Islam to say.

Count to 10 on May 4, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Belief in Islam supercedes all civil, secular, infidel authority or rule.

Sharia Law is theocratically antithetical to our non-theocratic Constitution and Bill of Rights and to believe in the former is to void the latter.

Anyone who adheres to Islam merely mouths any secular oaths as a tactic (taqiyya, or Islamically-sanctified deception of the suckers known as unbelievers) until such time as Mohammedans gain a demographic edge and can move to dominate and subjugate the unclean infidels.

It is the sworn aim of Islam, as codified in the Koran and expounded upon in the Hadiths.

A hudna (or temporary truce) is the only form of “peace” allowed for Muslims with infidels- until the Ummah members can re-arm, re-group and re-attack the kaffir swine.

Until Islam is understood and the Koran read, we are self-gelded and thereby at the mercy of our enemies.

profitsbeard on May 4, 2010 at 11:32 AM

Here’s a news flash: There’s no such thing as a white race.

lonesomecharlie on May 4, 2010 at 10:44 AM

Well, there is NASCAR.

jimmy2shoes on May 4, 2010 at 11:37 AM

You guys realize that Sharia law is not respected by Sunni Muslims right? Also, Osama bin Laden is a Sunni. I won’t disagree that there a numerous jihadi’s that ascribe to the ideology you describe but this hardly describes the majority of Muslims.

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 11:40 AM

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 11:40 AM

I would the describe the majority of Muslims as complicit by their silence when it comes to condemn terror attacks.

dpierson on May 4, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Islam is, primarily, a political movement, with an exceedingly thin veneer of religiosity. The clearly stated goal of islam is the submission of the entire world and all the peoples in it, to sharia law.
Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 11:29 AM

I’ve heard it suggested before: would Hitler have gotten more support from American liberals if he’d just emphasized the cultish aspects of Naziism a little more?

I remember when Saddam Hussein was given free airtime on every American TV network to explain the reasons behind his occupation. He just jabbered on for half an hour about how he suspected Kuwait of slant-drilling. Apparently, the idiot bought all the Socialist propaganda about how Americans were all “blood thirsty capitalists,” so he naturally assumed we would all be perfectly OK with razing a country over a mineral rights dispute. But, of course, even his most ardent liberal supporters wouldn’t touch that excuse with a ten foot pole.

I personally was stunned at Saddam’s obtuseness. All he had to do was babble incoherently about some imagined thousand-year-old religious dispute, and Western moonbats could have incorporated his propaganda directly into their own — FTW.

logis on May 4, 2010 at 11:44 AM

I would the describe the majority of Muslims as complicit by their silence when it comes to condemn terror attacks.

dpierson on May 4, 2010 at 11:43 AM

I think in some situations you are correct. However I think that there are local Afghani tribesman who have a hatred for the Taliban that you and I will never have.

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Here’s the thing about Miranda. There’s a built in penalty. If you don’t read the guy his rights, you can’t use what he says against him.

Well, if you’ve already got him dead to rights already, the intel he can provide may be worth a question or two.

EconomicNeocon on May 4, 2010 at 11:48 AM

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Yes and then they will turn around and work for them if the price is right.

dpierson on May 4, 2010 at 11:49 AM

The Constitution:

Section. 3.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

and Congress did exactly that with the Military Commissions Law they passed.

So Beck, Hotair, ACLU….was this an Act of Treason/War or was it a CRIME????

jp on May 4, 2010 at 10:32 AM

If you had actually read the section of the Constitution which you posted (yeah, I know, reading is hard, especially when you’re leading an enraged lynch mob), you’d have noticed that one forfeits one’s rights upon conviction of treason, not upon an accusation thereof. (Note especially the “Confession in Open Court” bit–citizens accused of treason get civilian trials.)

You might also refer to two specific clauses in the Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…”, and “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”.

Constitutional rights exist to protect the innocent. They could not serve to protect the innocent if they were revoked any time some ignorant rube began thirsting for blood. Just because he’s a Muslim does not mean he should be treated any differently than Timothy McVeigh. Convict him first, then string him from a yardarm.

hicsuget on May 4, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Bottom line: Nobody knows where whiet people came from but the case for a Nordic origin is as good as any other. It is just that it is politically incorrect since the time of the Nazis.

SurferDoc on May 4, 2010 at 11:31 AM

The bottom line is that it’s impossible to draw a clear line between populations and say ‘this is white, that is not’.

DarkCurrent on May 4, 2010 at 11:58 AM

You guys realize that Sharia law is not respected by Sunni Muslims right?

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Wrong.

Saudi Arabia is ruled under sharia law, and is exclusively Sunni.

You don’t seem to know as much about islam as you make out.

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 11:59 AM

Bottom line: Nobody knows where whiet people came from but the case for a Nordic origin is as good as any other. It is just that it is politically incorrect since the time of the Nazis.

SurferDoc on May 4, 2010 at 11:31 AM

First of all, my main point is that there is no such thing as a “white race.” Consider the Ainu (the first settlers of Japan). They look like Norwegians and for years were considered to be caucasian. DNA studies have proved that, not only are they not causasian – they are related to Australian Aboriginies.

All modern humans are indiginous to Africa. About 60,000 years ago a migration left Africa and headed east. Ten thousand years later, a second wave set out but some eventually returned to Africa. Both of these waves differentiated into “white” and “black” skinned ethnic groups and so some “white” groups are more closely related to “black” groups than other “white” groups (and vice-versa). This whole race business is just a made-up device intended to separate people so they can be ruled by power-seekers.

PS – forget that skull shape business, extensive DNA studies have disproved that sillyness once and for all.

lonesomecharlie on May 4, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Thus any and all oaths sworn by muslems on the Constitution is null and void, a lie to advance the cause of islam.
Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 11:29 AM

You really should let everyone know what days of the week you have set aside for honoring the Constitution and your American citizenship.

How about you reserve Tuesday, Thursday, and Sunday for honoring the Constitution and set aside Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday for entertaining your Republic of America fantasy?

rukiddingme on May 4, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Fine, miradize him. He is now guilty of treason against his country as well as the remaining assortment of charges.

Americannodash on May 4, 2010 at 10:32 AM

What proof do you have that he is a terrorist? Is every person that uses an explosive device against the public a terrorist?

The guy is a criminal and should be prosecuted to the laws’ full extent. Also, what’s the difference between hate-crime enhancements and terrorist enhancements? Don’t our original laws hold up in most of these cases anyway?

The Race Card on May 4, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Wrong.

Saudi Arabia is ruled under sharia law, and is exclusively Sunni.

You don’t seem to know as much about islam as you make out.

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 11:59 AM

I was wrong on that count – thou Sunni’s and Shi’a do see Sharia law very differently.

My larger point is that most Muslims don’t view it as their religious duty to conquer the world and convert it by the sword.

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 12:04 PM

The Miranda warning remains as stupid today as it ever was . Intended as a guard against police brutality , it never stopped it and never protected an innocent person . The courts pretend to forget who writes the police report and if it is not in the report , it did not happen , everything in the report is the gospel .

borntoraisehogs on May 4, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Here’s the thing about Miranda. There’s a built in penalty. If you don’t read the guy his rights, you can’t use what he says against him.
EconomicNeocon on May 4, 2010 at 11:48 AM

The thing is, Miranda provides absolutely no penalty for the police officer himself – he gets paid whether the criminal is convicted or not. There are, and have always been, laws on the books for punishing police officers who exceed their authority in questioning subjects. The Miranda Amendment was imposed because, of course, most juries would not do what liberals wanted them to.

Miranda puts all the penalties on SOCIETY, by releasing a known criminal back into our midst. This has nothing to do with the Constitution, and everything to do with liberalism at its most extreme: rewarding the criminal, and punishing the “evil” society that was presumably responsible for making him do what he did.

logis on May 4, 2010 at 12:10 PM

My larger point is that most Muslims don’t view it as their religious duty to conquer the world and convert it by the sword.

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 12:04 PM

Anyone who has taken the time to learn even the most rudimentary level of islamic ideology, and read the most elementary islamic texts, knows that’s not the case.

It is plainly stated, the duty of every muslem is to bring the world under islam. That non-muslems continue to deceive themselves as to this basic driving force of islam, is one of the biggest problems we have in defending ourselves.

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 12:11 PM

Anyone who has taken the time to learn even the most rudimentary level of islamic ideology, and read the most elementary islamic texts, knows that’s not the case.

It is plainly stated, the duty of every muslem is to bring the world under islam. That non-muslems continue to deceive themselves as to this basic driving force of islam, is one of the biggest problems we have in defending ourselves.

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 12:11 PM

So it’s your thesis that 1 BILLION people are chomping at the bit to subjugate the world?

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 12:13 PM

The Miranda warning remains as stupid today as it ever was . Intended as a guard against police brutality , it never stopped it and never protected an innocent person . The courts pretend to forget who writes the police report and if it is not in the report , it did not happen , everything in the report is the gospel .

borntoraisehogs on May 4, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Stupidity must be painful.

The Race Card on May 4, 2010 at 12:24 PM

Anyone who has taken the time to learn even the most rudimentary level of islamic ideology, and read the most elementary islamic texts, knows that’s not the case.

It is plainly stated, the duty of every muslem is to bring the world under islam. That non-muslems continue to deceive themselves as to this basic driving force of islam, is one of the biggest problems we have in defending ourselves.

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 12:11 PM

I doubt you apply such strict scrutiny to your own convictions. Regardless, you are entitled to your beliefs.

What then, do you propose America do about its negro Muslim problem? That is how you view their presence as American citizens, right? Problematic?

The Race Card on May 4, 2010 at 12:28 PM

So it’s your thesis that 1 BILLION people are chomping at the bit to subjugate the world?

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Most are content to let those who wish to fight, to carry the burden.

Note the vast majority of that billion are completely silent regarding the murder, destruction, and other violence committed by the jihadists – because they know it’s 100% approved islamic ideology.

This might help you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV4nemgNNK4

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Anyone who has taken the time to learn even the most rudimentary level of islamic ideology, and read the most elementary islamic texts, knows that’s not the case.

It is plainly stated, the duty of every muslem is to bring the world under islam. That non-muslems continue to deceive themselves as to this basic driving force of islam, is one of the biggest problems we have in defending ourselves.

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 12:11 PM

So it’s your thesis that 1 BILLION people are chomping at the bit to subjugate the world?

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Don’t take this the wrong way, but you are a moron.

logis on May 4, 2010 at 12:30 PM

We can’t start shredding the Constitution ourselves–not if we truly value it. If its values are eternal, they are eternal, and we should treat them as such. This stupid guy will probably walk because he was not mirandized, but our Constitution and our civilization working according to the rule of law is worth preserving.

ahem on May 4, 2010 at 12:35 PM

Most are content to let those who wish to fight, to carry the burden.

Note the vast majority of that billion are completely silent regarding the murder, destruction, and other violence committed by the jihadists – because they know it’s 100% approved islamic ideology.

This might help you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV4nemgNNK4

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Most Muslims live under brutal regimes. Those that do remain silent do so because they’d prefer not to be hauled off to prison to be tortured or have their family members brutalized. Jihadi’s also kill and target other Muslims.

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 12:39 PM

We can’t start shredding the Constitution ourselves–not if we truly value it. If its values are eternal, they are eternal, and we should treat them as such.
ahem on May 4, 2010 at 12:35 PM

Constitutional Amendments drafted and ratified by the Supreme Court are only “eternal” until the next appointment.

This stupid guy will probably walk because he was not mirandized, but our Constitution and our civilization working according to the rule of law is worth preserving.

Wow. You didn’t think any part of that through, did you?

logis on May 4, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 12:29 PM

What about Muslims serving in our armed services? Are you contending that they are just waiting for the right moment to show their true colors or that they aren’t really Muslim?

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 12:42 PM

Most Muslims live under brutal regimes. Those that do remain silent do so because they’d prefer not to be hauled off to prison to be tortured or have their family members brutalized. Jihadi’s also kill and target other Muslims.

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 12:39 PM

I don’t see how that contradicts any of my points. Mohammad’s reign was brutal and tyrannical, there’s nothing un-islamic for current regimes to act in the same way. That’s sharia law, the same law that muslems are commanded to bring to the whole world – including and especially America.

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 12:43 PM

What about Muslims serving in our armed services? Are you contending that they are just waiting for the right moment to show their true colors or that they aren’t really Muslim?

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 12:42 PM

Waiting for Sudden Jihad Syndrome, or just bad muslems.

Watch that video I posted, it explains the basic principles.

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 12:47 PM

I don’t see how that contradicts any of my points. Mohammad’s reign was brutal and tyrannical, there’s nothing un-islamic for current regimes to act in the same way. That’s sharia law, the same law that muslems are commanded to bring to the whole world – including and especially America.

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 12:43 PM

You seem to be saying that even if these ‘silent’ Muslims weren’t oppressed by brutal regimes they’d be acting the same way as their oppressors.

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 12:47 PM

Note the vast majority of that billion are completely silent regarding the murder, destruction, and other violence committed by the jihadists – because they know it’s 100% approved islamic ideology.
Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 12:29 PM

This is the part that no liberal will ever understand. To them, there is only their parochial version of an eternal “rightness” that surpasses all other belief systems — except, of course, for their own belief system, which they are all fanatically convinced is not a belief system at all.

To the liberal mind, “extremist” Muslims simply pop up randomly in response to imagined western agressions. And they have nothing whatsoever to do with “moderate” Muslims -(defined as every Muslim who is not currently exploding a bomb.)

Those moderate Muslims, of course, must all want exactly the same thing every other good liberal wants: a safe, comfortable Judeo-Christian society, but preferably with all that nasty religion stuff contaminating it.

logis on May 4, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Beck is sorta wrong. You can ignore the Constitution limitedly if the President enacts martial law.

I pray it doesn’t happen, but it bombs start going off regularly, then I see no choice but for the Congress to declare martial law.

Tim Burton on May 4, 2010 at 12:57 PM

So it’s your thesis that 1 BILLION people are chomping at the bit to subjugate the world?

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Don’t take this the wrong way, but you are a moron.

logis on May 4, 2010 at 12:30 PM

To borrow a phrase from a respected commenter: I do not think that word means what you think it means.

You called gwelf a moron and then say this?

Constitutional Amendments drafted and ratified by the Supreme Court are only “eternal” until the next appointment.

logis on May 4, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Wow. You didn’t think any part of that through, did you?

Amendments to the Constitution must pass a two-thirds super majority vote of both the House of Representatives and the Senate before being released to the states for review. In order for an Amendment to be adopted, it must be ratified by 75% of the states within the time frame allotted by Congress (seven years is typical).

rukiddingme on May 4, 2010 at 1:00 PM

You can ignore the Constitution limitedly if the President enacts martial law. I pray it doesn’t happen, but it bombs start going off regularly, then I see no choice but for the Congress to declare martial law.

Tim Burton on May 4, 2010 at 12:57 PM

The irony in you oozes from you pores…..

Unless of course the President’s name was Abraham Lincoln.

rukiddingme on May 4, 2010 at 1:03 PM

You seem to be saying that even if these ’silent’ Muslims weren’t oppressed by brutal regimes they’d be acting the same way as their oppressors.

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 12:47 PM

The vast majority of muslems in Europe and America are silent also, are they under “oppressive brutal regimes” or are they aware of the basic islamic teachings of jihad?

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 1:05 PM

You seem to be saying that even if these ’silent’ Muslims weren’t oppressed by brutal regimes they’d be acting the same way as their oppressors.

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 12:47 PM

To believe in Islam is to disbelieve in all man-made Laws.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are laughable, unclean temporary infidel impediments to the final glorious global domination of totalitarian, intolerant Islam.

Unlike the Judeo-Christian and other creeds which have finally (after millennia of their own bloodsoaked holy warfare) accepted secular Law and agree that theocratic rule is not necessary on Earth.

Islam, however, by its sacred dogmas, cannot accept this.

There is no “render unto Caesar” in their codex.

All power must be religious, in Islam’s view.

And this will keep it at the throats of all infidels forever.

Or until it reforms (i.e ceases to be “Islam”) or is dumped on the ash-heap of history along with the heart-ripping Aztecs and infant-sacrificing Moloch.

profitsbeard on May 4, 2010 at 1:07 PM

Fine, mirandize him. He is now guilty of treason against his country as well as the remaining assortment of charges.

Americannodash on May 4, 2010 at 10:32 AM

What proof do you have that he is a terrorist? Is every person that uses an explosive device against the public a terrorist?

The guy is a criminal and should be prosecuted to the laws’ full extent. Also, what’s the difference between hate-crime enhancements and terrorist enhancements? Don’t our original laws hold up in most of these cases anyway?

The Race Card on May 4, 2010 at 12:03 PM

I said treason, not terrorist. He is a citizen of this country is he not? You’re really losing it, aren’t you?

Treason:

trea·son [ trz'n ]
betrayal of country: a violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country, e.g. by aiding an enemy.
treachery: betrayal or disloyalty.

Review the steps of this citizen behavior leading up to the bombing attempt and afterwards.

Americannodash on May 4, 2010 at 1:22 PM

By his own words, Rebar is prejudiced against Muslims. Not all prejudice stems from bigotry or racism. Some people are prejudiced due to ignorance.

Rebar is bigoted and prejudiced. I suspect that race plays little role in his beliefs about Muslims. He hates them equally whether they’re from Beslan, Indonesia or next door.

The Race Card on May 4, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Rebar is bigoted and prejudiced. I suspect that race plays little role in his beliefs about Muslims. He hates them equally whether they’re from Beslan, Indonesia or next door.

The Race Card on May 4, 2010 at 1:27 PM

And you determined that… by my quoting of mainstream islamic sources?

Perhaps I’m not the ignorant one here.

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 1:32 PM

Constitutional Amendments drafted and ratified by the Supreme Court are only “eternal” until the next appointment.
logis on May 4, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Wow. You didn’t think any part of that through, did you?
rukiddingme on May 4, 2010 at 1:00 PM

No, of course I thought through what I said. Unfortunately neither the Supreme Court nor any liberal ever has.

The “Constitution” is actually a document. It has words written on it. And, of course, neither it nor any REAL Amendment contains any reference at all to anything even remotely like “Miranda Rights.”

logis on May 4, 2010 at 1:33 PM

If they mirandize him they should also martinize him, hydrolyze him, homogenize him, lobotomize him, before hanging and THEN… killing him.

He’s dead to Rahm anyway.

ontherocks on May 4, 2010 at 1:36 PM

Rebar is bigoted and prejudiced. I suspect that race plays little role in his beliefs about Muslims. He hates them equally whether they’re from Beslan, Indonesia or next door.

The Race Card on May 4, 2010 at 1:27 PM

That ‘s damn fine analysis for a card playa.

ontherocks on May 4, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Rebar is bigoted and prejudiced.
The Race Card on May 4, 2010 at 1:27 PM

And you determined that… by my quoting of mainstream islamic sources?
Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 1:32 PM

Well du-uh. That’s pretty much the DEFINITION of the word “prejudice,” as liberals use it: To hold an opinion which is based on a solid foundation of facts.

logis on May 4, 2010 at 1:40 PM

ontherocks on May 4, 2010 at 1:36 PM

Maybe Rahm can interrogate him by standing in front of him naked and screaming at him, seems to work with members of congress.

dpierson on May 4, 2010 at 1:44 PM

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 1:32 PM

By his own words,

what he said

The Race Card on May 4, 2010 at 1:45 PM

logis on May 4, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Then why fight the label. Embrace the hate.

The Race Card on May 4, 2010 at 1:46 PM

Embrace the hate.The Race Card on May 4, 2010 at 1:46 PM

The hate islam has for America – do you embrace that?

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 1:48 PM

My guess is this is why the man became a citizen, so that he would have the right to remain silent.

As for Beck and his concern for the Constitution, it should be noted that the founders did not require law enforcement to read people their rights, that came along centuries later. So, I am not sure that it is as simple as Beck makes it all sound.

Terrye on May 4, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Maybe Rahm can interrogate him by standing in front of him naked and screaming at him, seems to work with members of congress.

dpierson on May 4, 2010 at 1:44 PM

That is a really horrific visual, ….. this may well be the genesis of a completely new tool bag in the ongoing nonwar of overseas contingencies, over here.

ontherocks on May 4, 2010 at 1:50 PM

If we cannot tell the difference between an act of war and a crime, then how will we decide what to do to defend ourselves? You can dither over constitutional questions ad nauseam (and rest assured, the Messiah & Co. are no better at this than the conversationalists on this blog,) but the enemies who simply hate us for what we are/what we have/who we associate with are not anywhere near as indecisive.

n0doz on May 4, 2010 at 1:50 PM

What proof do you have that he is a terrorist? Is every person that uses an explosive device against the public a terrorist?

The guy is a criminal and should be prosecuted to the laws’ full extent. Also, what’s the difference between hate-crime enhancements and terrorist enhancements? Don’t our original laws hold up in most of these cases anyway?

The Race Card on May 4, 2010 at 12:03 PM

I said treason, not terrorist. He is a citizen of this country is he not? You’re really losing it, aren’t you?

Treason:

trea·son [ trz'n ]
betrayal of country: a violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country, e.g. by aiding an enemy.
treachery: betrayal or disloyalty.

Review the steps of this citizen behavior leading up to the bombing attempt and afterwards.

Americannodash on May 4, 2010 at 1:22 PM

I agree.

Besides, remember what happened to McVeigh.

Terrye on May 4, 2010 at 1:52 PM

The “Constitution” is actually a document. It has words written on it. And, of course, neither it nor any REAL Amendment contains any reference at all to anything even remotely like “Miranda Rights.”

logis on May 4, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Appointing a few more Scalias might get Miranda overruled, but until then police officers and lower courts can’t apply the law based on their own personal Constitutional theories.

dedalus on May 4, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3