It’s on: Beck vs. O’Reilly over Miranda rights

posted at 9:50 pm on May 14, 2010 by Allahpundit

Via the Right Scoop. I’ve been googling around trying to find a plain answer to this question and came up short, so lawyers, please enlighten me. Isn’t it true that Miranda rights have nothing to do with citizenship? They stem from the Fifth Amendment privilege of self-incrimination, which reads, “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…” It applies to any person, not any citizen, who’s under suspicion by the law enforcement machinery of the United States; the fact that Shahzad is a U.S. citizen theoretically has nothing to do with the Miranda issues in the case. (It would, however, have plenty to do with whether he can be tried by a military tribunal.) In any case, Beck’s problem with denying Miranda rights to Shahzad seems to have less to do with concerns about obtaining actionable intelligence from terrorists than how the White House might exploit a Miranda loophole to grill people like, I guess, Glenn Beck. Advantage: O’Reilly.


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

Miranda rights aren’t constitutionally based. They were made up by the Supreme Court. Of course U.S. citizens or anyone else doesn’t need to be read them.

taney71 on May 14, 2010 at 9:58 PM

In any case, Beck’s problem with denying Miranda rights to Shahzad seems to have less to do with concerns about obtaining actionable intelligence from terrorists than how the White House might exploit a Miranda loophole to grill people like, I guess, Glenn Beck. Advantage: O’Reilly.

Yeah the citizen/non citizen distinction is pretty meaningless for purposes of Miranda rights. If you’re here from Guatemala and you’re arrested you’re still entitled to a Miranda warning.

I’m not sure why Beck is so focused on it. I think he’s trying to appear principled or something.

crr6 on May 14, 2010 at 10:05 PM

came up short, so lawyers, please enlighten me.

This may come as a shock but I have always considered you the go to guy at Hot Air in the lawyer department.

Cindy Munford on May 14, 2010 at 10:05 PM

I thought the system worked already.

So if Holder can’t have KSM’s trial in Manhattan (down the street from the new Mosque), then he’s decided to get rid of Miranda for suspected terrorists? Is that it?

Poor little Stedman is going to take his toys and go home.

SlaveDog on May 14, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Mr. Beck is a touch to conspiritorial for me and O’Reilly is just noise. It’s a draw.

Cindy Munford on May 14, 2010 at 10:07 PM

“It applies to any person, not any citizen, who’s under suspicion by the law enforcement machinery of the United States…”

I was really hoping you were going to work ‘liquidation’ some where into this thread, Allah…

… I guess there is always the ‘Update’.

Seven Percent Solution on May 14, 2010 at 10:07 PM

Miranda rights aren’t constitutionally based.

taney71 on May 14, 2010 at 9:58 PM

heh.

crr6 on May 14, 2010 at 10:10 PM

^ Just because the Supreme Court makes crap up doesn’t mean the executive branch has to follow it.

taney71 on May 14, 2010 at 10:12 PM

Miranda or not, if that suspect asks for a lawyer immediately then any questioning beyond that point is inadmissible evidence. I’ll guess that 60-80% of US citizens know that they can ask for an attorney. So then what do you do?

GnuBreed on May 14, 2010 at 10:15 PM

BillO = Behind the curve
GlennB = Ahead of the curve

macncheez on May 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM

That was hilarious…

Skandia Recluse on May 14, 2010 at 10:18 PM

yawn…

RobCon on May 14, 2010 at 10:22 PM

Miranda applies to persons, not just citizens.

Applying to state and federal criminal prosecutions, Miranda and its progeny hold that evidence obtained from a person in custody cannot be used at trial unless the person has been advised of certain rights, and waived those rights.

novaculus on May 14, 2010 at 10:23 PM

It isn’t paranoia when they’re after you.

Pablo on May 14, 2010 at 10:23 PM

Miranda is a 6th Amendment case based on the final clause that says “, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.”.
The truly pernicious nature of Miranda is not that it supports the right of counsel, but that it establishes in law the notion that recognition of a right contains within it the obligation of the government to provide it. This is the basis of the monstrosity that calls itself ObamaCare, in that by proclaiming health care to be “Right” it’s advocates also claim the right to have the government confiscate my private property to finance it.
In the general case, this is the engine of Leviathan in that it completely unfetters government at every level to micromanage everything from birth to death. Right down to the most intimate level of human existence.
By the way, since the 2nd amendment recognizes my right to bear arms, I’m waiting for the letter from Washington telling me where I can go to pick up the free firearm they owe me.
Good Luck!

Lew on May 14, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Applying to state and federal criminal prosecutions, Miranda and its progeny hold that evidence obtained from a person in custody cannot be used at trial unless the person has been advised of certain rights, and waived those rights.

novaculus on May 14, 2010 at 10:23 PM

Yes, and that’s important to remember when we’re talking Miranda. Frankly, any American citizen that doesn’t know they have a right to remain silent is probably too stupid to have anything meaningful to tell you.

Pablo on May 14, 2010 at 10:25 PM

These guys know about the Miranda ruling and use it if they want. The Barbarians are using our own system to dismantle our country and no one even is noticing.

thomasaur on May 14, 2010 at 10:29 PM

BillO = Behind the curve
GlennB = Ahead of the curve

macncheez on May 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM

BillO = Behind the curve
GlennB = Ahead of the curve

macncheez on May 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM

BillO trusts Obama and his administration
Glenn Beck doesn’t trust anyone in Washington DC
Advantage Beck

thomasaur on May 14, 2010 at 10:31 PM

O’Reilly is not even a serious thinker.

MB4 on May 14, 2010 at 10:31 PM

You have to inform people you arrest of their right to remain silent, but if you don’t, you just can’t use what they confess to you in court. Sometimes the confession is superfluous. If you have somebody’s face on video robbing a liquor store, and you have their fingerprints, collected from the inside of the till, whether their confession is allowed into evidence, or not, doesn’t really matter much.

RBMN on May 14, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Naw, O’Reilly is a douche bag arrogant full of himself pen-head geek… Beck is a bit of a drama queen, but not in the same egomaniac league with O’Reilly.

Keemo on May 14, 2010 at 10:33 PM

Miranda was put in place to stop the blatant disregard of the Constitutional Protections of citizens. The government, in the form of the police is not capable of staying within the constitution without something forcing them to. The Supreme court uses the Miranda Rights to force this on them. If Obama gets any Miranda Rights loophole, be certain that his justice department will rip that hole as wide as needed in order to use that loophole against “Terrorist” Tea Partiers.

astonerii on May 14, 2010 at 10:35 PM

O’Reilly is the reason I stopped watching Fox.

astonerii on May 14, 2010 at 10:38 PM

I might add this: Beck is in this fight to win. Beck is not backing down and has been quite educational at times. Beck has chosen a team and makes no bones about it. O’Reilly wants to stay neutral and make nice with everybody, telling both sides of the issue, and all of that crap that was just fine a few years before this attack on America from within.

Beck and I fight for the same team. O’Reilly truly is a coward on most issues.

Keemo on May 14, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Beck is thinking outside the box and for good reason with this administration. He knows this new rule will be used against any Americans they “deem” dangerous at some point down the line.

BOR is an idiot.

katy on May 14, 2010 at 10:42 PM

I’m with Beck. Once “criminally” arrested in the US, every suspect has Miranda rights. Period. If you want to give the government a loophole (Public Safety) to suspend those rights, that is an invitation to fascism.
Yeah, let’s start letting the government round up suspected Christian militia members on the pretext that they are terror suspects, and deny them their Miranda rights…oh wait!….
The correct response, imo: stop treating acts of terror as a crime.

Randy

williars on May 14, 2010 at 10:42 PM

BillO trusts Obama and his administration
Glenn Beck doesn’t trust anyone in Washington DC
Advantage Beck
thomasaur on May 14, 2010 at 10:31 PM

BillO is dying to get an interview with Hussain, so he throws flying kisses @ WH

GlennB has the red phone for Hussain , and pokes WH
everyday

macncheez on May 14, 2010 at 10:43 PM

MB4 on May 14, 2010 at 10:31 PM

I am impressed…that you could construct a sentance with O’Reilly and thinker in present tense……good on you!

dmann on May 14, 2010 at 10:45 PM

BOR is an idiot.

katy on May 14, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Don’t hold back…BOR is a whore!

dmann on May 14, 2010 at 10:46 PM

BOR is an idiot.

katy on May 14, 2010 at 10:42 PM
Don’t hold back…BOR is a whore!

dmann on May 14, 2010 at 10:46 PM

I believe that he is both.

thomasaur on May 14, 2010 at 10:57 PM

thomasaur on May 14, 2010 at 10:57 PM

NEXT!

dmann on May 14, 2010 at 11:00 PM

Allah,
You are correct, Miranda has nothing to do with citizenship, only of being accused of a crime if you are being interrogated in a custodial situation.

Squid Shark on May 14, 2010 at 11:05 PM

AP is right, the “Miranda” rights are derived from the Fifth Amendment. I have no comment as to the “public safety exception” or whether this would apply to non-U.S. citizens. Feel free to google the opinion for yourself, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

O’Reilly, like most people, is willing to shred the constitution when it doesn’t suit his needs. He doesn’t realize the implications when conservatives are considered enemies of the state in the not too distant future.

bigbeas on May 14, 2010 at 11:05 PM

O’Reilly is not even a serious thinker.

MB4 on May 14, 2010 at 10:31 PM

Is that being said with the implication that Beck is?

Squid Shark on May 14, 2010 at 11:06 PM

bigbeas on May 14, 2010 at 11:05 PM

Most conservatives are more than happy to throw the 4th, 5th, 6th and big chunks of the 1st to the wolves when it suits them to do so.

Squid Shark on May 14, 2010 at 11:07 PM

Squid Shark on May 14, 2010 at 11:07 PM

Please correct….Most pseudo conservatives

dmann on May 14, 2010 at 11:11 PM

pretty simple situation… when you apply the law to the facts.

1.) Shahzad is a citizen although that has nothing to do with being Mirandized. The fact that he committed a crime on American soil grants him that protection.

2.) The crime he committed is TREASON.

end of story

roflmao

donabernathy on May 14, 2010 at 11:13 PM

“O’Reilly is the reason I stopped watching Fox.

astonerii on May 14, 2010 at 10:38 PM”

Wouldn’t it make more sense to just stop watching O’Reilly?

notropis on May 14, 2010 at 11:24 PM

There sure are a lot of fake conservatives on this site. A lot of people who are too worried about what the left might think of them so they have to act like Beck is an idiot.

The Notorious G.O.P on May 14, 2010 at 11:31 PM

I think Beck’s underlying concern is a valid one….if they create a “public safety” exception then grilling tea party members may be just around the corner

JKotthoff on May 14, 2010 at 11:36 PM

A lot of people who are too worried about what the left might think of them so they have to act like Beck is an idiot.

The Notorious G.O.P on May 14, 2010 at 11:31 PM

They are more worried about what Allahpundit and his Droogs think than the left.

thomasaur on May 14, 2010 at 11:37 PM

The Notorious G.O.P on May 14, 2010 at 11:31 PM

Not alot of acting involved, he is a buffoon.

Squid Shark on May 14, 2010 at 11:41 PM

the fact that Shahzad is a U.S. citizen theoretically has nothing to do with the Miranda issues in the case. (It would, however, have plenty to do with whether he can be tried by a military tribunal

AP, I agree but I believe where the real confusion stems from (especially from the left) is in dealing with terrorists that are not US citizens and/or illegal enemy combatants captured on the battlefield. The left continue to have the misconception that terrorists and/or illegal enemy combatants are entitled to habeas corpus rights under the US constitution when they clearly ARE NOT entitled to such rights.

Perhaps the question we should be asking esteemed HA posters with a law background is what is the law when it comes to a US citizen committing treason against its own nation! How is such a criminal tried, in a civilian court, or a military court? It would seem to me that since we are at war (although the left is still in deep denial about this fact) that any US citizen that commits an act of terrorism against the US and it citizens should be tried as any other enemy of the state, in a military tribunal. Go ahead and give the citizen his miranda rights and habeas corpus rights, but try him in a military court and if found guilty execute him/her.

Liberty or Death on May 14, 2010 at 11:51 PM

BOR is a self aggrandizing populist and ego-maniac. BOR watches out for BOR and no one else.

I remember him calling the four murdered Americans working for Blackwater “wannabes”.

Hard Right on May 14, 2010 at 11:55 PM

These guys know about the Miranda ruling and use it if they want. The Barbarians are using our own system to dismantle our country and no one even is noticing.

thomasaur on May 14, 2010 at 10:29 PM

Except us Right Wing gun-clinging Nazi racists.

/s

Gang-of-One on May 15, 2010 at 12:04 AM

The Notorious G.O.P on May 14, 2010 at 11:31 PM
Not alot of acting involved, he is a buffoon.
Squid Shark on May 14, 2010 at 11:41 PM

I don’t see anyone else stepping up to the forefront to expose Crime, Inc. Thank God for Glenn Beck.

alwaysright43 on May 15, 2010 at 12:18 AM

Did Beck say he’s strong on defense. LOL! That’s funny.

terryannonline on May 15, 2010 at 12:19 AM

Predictably,9 out of 10 leftard trolls agree with Oilypundit.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on May 15, 2010 at 12:28 AM

Miranda was a guilty as hell rapist . Whizzer White said loud and clear , Miranda has no basis in the Constitution and puts rapists back on the street . No miranda thought . He was retried and convicted with the tainted evidence excluded . How many innocent people confess ? Would you ?

borntoraisehogs on May 15, 2010 at 12:34 AM

but I do believe that there needs to be a basis for the belief that the compelling occurred.

blink on May 15, 2010 at 12:18 AM

And what basis might that be?

chemman on May 15, 2010 at 12:37 AM

borntoraisehogs on May 15, 2010 at 12:34 AM

Are you really that naive?

chemman on May 15, 2010 at 12:39 AM

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

So why does this apply to those who are not citizens? Just asking…

Roc on May 15, 2010 at 12:43 AM

As I understand it, “Miranda” is a safe haven rule, with a strong bias against. It’s not impossible to proceed without a Miranda warning, but it is more difficult.

cthulhu on May 15, 2010 at 12:44 AM

How many innocent people confess ? Would you ?

borntoraisehogs on May 15, 2010 at 12:34 AM

Good Lord, man. How could anyone who knows ANYTHING about history, power, or human nature say this?

I must conclude that you are a robot. No doubt you have also been programmed with the pithy comeback “the innocent have nothing to fear”.

Inkblots on May 15, 2010 at 12:49 AM

Miranda is not mentioned in the Constitution, which is why we went without it for almost 200 years. The decision has certainly cost thousands of lives.

echosyst on May 15, 2010 at 12:58 AM

The naturalization process, at least in part, is a contractual agreement whereby the new citizen swears fidelity and loyalty to the United States. It appears likely that Shahzad only became a citizen so he could facilitate his chances for committing murder and mayhem by a terrorist act under the direction and control of foreign agent or agents.

Thus Shahzad is a spy who signed a contract under fraudulent conditions. Any contract, signed under fraudelent conditions is void or voidable by the other party to the agreement (the United States government.)Translatiojn: The US government merely has to proclaim” YOU, SIR, ARE NOT A CITIZEN.

But, as others have pointed out, MIRANDA RIGHTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONSTITUTION. These rights are a fiat ordered by an earlier SC and could just as easily be struck down (albeit unlikely currently) by another fiat by a future SC.

MaiDee on May 15, 2010 at 1:10 AM

Glenn is wrong about Miranda Rights being Constitutional rights.

What is wrong with him?

kakypat on May 15, 2010 at 3:40 AM

Roe v Wade is more constitutional than Miranda rights…and Roe v Wade isn’t constitutional at all!

What the heck is wrong with Glenn??

kakypat on May 15, 2010 at 3:43 AM

bloody chatter, sickening

albertpale on May 15, 2010 at 5:00 AM

I remember him calling the four murdered Americans working for Blackwater “wannabes”.

Hard Right on May 14, 2010 at 11:55 PM

Link please?

I’m no fan of Bill O. (or Beck, for that matter) but I was not aware of this.

Cylor on May 15, 2010 at 5:30 AM

Talk all you want…

How many of you have forgotten what we are fighting against and what they are willing to do…?

… It’s a good thing Nick Berg got his Miranda Rights.

Oh, wait! (Extreme Content Warning!!!)

Seven Percent Solution on May 15, 2010 at 5:33 AM

Persons, in the US Constitution, has a definite meaning as given by those who make it and who self-define who the persons are that are involved in the United States:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This is not a universal declaration for all people, but for a particular people who created, live under and abide by this social compact that is only declared in the last words of the sentence. That Constitution is for the United States of America which is defined by We the People.

If you are looking for the universal on person, you want the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Notice that it contains the universal ‘opinions of mankind’ made under the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. Thus the reasoning and rationale behind what is being done in the Declaration is universal to the state of mankind as natural beings who are all equal under God.

The Constitution creates a system of equality amongst the People who create and constitute the United States of America by giving fealty to it, supporting it, abiding by those lose that put forward those few things we delegate to government and seeking equality of justice amongst ourselves and creating a system that will then interact with other Nations as decided by the President with consent of the Senate and supported by the full Congress via laws that have equality of application. Thus all persons who are of, by and for the United States and living in lawful agreement with it can be given different treatment from foreigners as they can and are discriminated against by not being citizens.

One cannot mix the preceptual basis for making Nations (that is the universal nature of mankind creating the Law of Nations) and the instantiation basis of a single Nation creating a compact that is regarded by its people as sacrosanct for them as it upholds their society, their laws and their Nation, which is separate from all other Nations. The context of each document is different as it addresses different needs and rights (the venue of man as a creature of the Laws of Nature and the creation of a Nation under the Law of Nations), and attempts to conflate the general and universal as applicable to the specific is wrong-headed as not all Nations abide by the laws that we created and yet we are still all covered under the universal Laws of Nature and Law of Nations. If it were so that this were not true, then ALL NATIONS would have equality under the law for all citizens, and yet that is not the case amongst mankind at any point in its history. Therefore the universal right to make Nations is not the same as the laws created within a Nation to support its people.

If you want to apply the Constitution globally, then you need a global State to do so. Such States with that ambition we call: Empire. And they are the enemy of liberty and freedom in all regards, and need to be confronted at every turn if we wish to keep our liberty and freedom as we define it, not as others wish to define it for us.

ajacksonian on May 15, 2010 at 6:52 AM

Most conservatives are more than happy to throw the 4th, 5th, 6th and big chunks of the 1st to the wolves when it suits them to do so.

Squid Shark on May 14, 2010 at 11:07 PM

Yes, it’s those conservatives in the White House and Congress who are using the Constitution as toilet paper, isn’t it?

Squiggy on May 15, 2010 at 6:55 AM

Miranda himself was not a citizen. So citizenship is not the issue.

Most conservatives are more than happy to throw the 4th, 5th, 6th and big chunks of the 1st to the wolves when it suits them to do so.

Squid Shark on May 14, 2010 at 11:07 PM

Yes, it’s those conservatives in the White House and Congress who are using the Constitution as toilet paper, isn’t it?

Squiggy on May 15, 2010 at 6:55 AM

This reminds of Judge Napolitano, a frequent guest on Fox, he is a libertarian. He does not support the Arizona bill or the Patriot Act either. He also does not support Obamacare.

The problem with libertarians is that too often they live in a fantasy world. They just do not see reality..why not legalize drugs and take the criminals out of it they say? Well..look at Mexico, how did that work out for them?

I don’t think conservatives are shredding anything. There is no way in hell that the founding fathers would have let some fanatic hide behind the constitution, that was never their intent.

Terrye on May 15, 2010 at 7:02 AM

Glen is right. This administration is up to something and it aint good.

stenwin77 on May 15, 2010 at 7:28 AM

I had a horrible thing happen to me yesterday. My hairdresser had to do my hair at her house, and she watches The View. BillO was on there. He and Behar were altogether too chummy. He cracked wise and was all buddy-buddy with those dippy harpies. Sheer torture.

di butler on May 15, 2010 at 7:29 AM

Miranda this don,t Miranda that profile this one don,t profile that one.Our Constitution is not a suicide pack.If you are trying to find a bomb before it goes off and you have to beat the hell out of one of the guys to find it do it.

thmcbb on May 15, 2010 at 7:36 AM

Acts of terror against peaceful civilians should disqualify one of every right granted to US citizens or a diplomats.
Miranda needs to revisited, especially when it is used to suppress real evidence. Who on this planet does not know their rights by now!?

The good side of Miranda is that it sets limits on rouge cops who have tried to sculpt a case to fit their need to solve it and try quickly.

Then again, there is the MSM and their looney circus of syntax lynchings staring folks like the late Richard Jewell. Or what about the political skullduggery of that idiot prosecutor who tried to destroy the Duke lacrosse players based solely on false accusations made by a crazy whore with a history. And then there’s Al Sharpton, JJ & their loco band of idiots who play the race card like every card in shoe are wild jokers.

kregg on May 15, 2010 at 8:13 AM

Billy boy O’ is an Obama stooge. He’s been late to the party for 2 yrs now.

Beck has been right more than wrong so far. I don’t like beck when he gets all “mormmony” but he’s right politically.

Beck +5
Billy boy-5

Lisa on May 15, 2010 at 8:33 AM

crr6, Constitutional rights are for citizens. That we misguidedly extend them to any non-citizen doesn’t change that fact.

SDN on May 15, 2010 at 8:46 AM

Prisoner’s of war are given constitutional protection?

Johan Klaus on May 15, 2010 at 9:08 AM

Shazad committed an act of war and act of sabotage against the US. He is an enemy combatant. Miranda should not apply to such acts as anything he says should be usable in a military tribunal which is not a ‘criminal court’ as written in the Fifth Amendment. Second intelligence targets are also outside the scope of Miranda protections. Third, Miranda, like abortion rights, is not stated in the Constitution but is a judicial gloss that is subject to modification. People can have reasonable disagreements about the scope of Miranda. If you believe that given the number of statists, socialists and communists in the present Administration, that it can’t be trusted with a more relaxed Miranda rule with respect to terrorist activities (i.e. islamist terrorists won’t get the terror classification but non violent teapartiers and militia members would be so classified)then you would probably weigh against expanding the exception. Then you would have to weigh how many civilian casualties you are willing to accept for your reading of the law, because actions have consequences. This is not a law school theoretical exercise. Terrorists and Governments operate in the real world. Striking the balance one way or the other, will have significant effects on our security.

eaglewingz08 on May 15, 2010 at 9:16 AM

Advantage: O’Reilly.

Wrong and dumb. Ultimately right wing groups, veterans and Tea Partiers can be put on terrorist watch lists and denied Miranda rights the grade of slippery slope becomes scary.

It’s pretty funny and ironic to watch O’Reilly defend the denial of one of the most basic protections afforded a person in the US.

There was so much concern about the rights of terrorists captured overseas that it’s incomprehensible to find these people arguing about curtailing the rights of citizens.

drjohn on May 15, 2010 at 9:22 AM

The problem with libertarians is that too often they live in a fantasy world. They just do not see reality..why not legalize drugs and take the criminals out of it they say? Well..look at Mexico, how did that work out for them?

The Mexican cartels thrive of of the American illegal drug trade.

And I dont live in a fantasy world, I am just making an observation. Look at our most recent allegedly conservative justices. Alito and to a lesser extent Roberts are just the type I have been talking about. Thank G-d Scalia aint dead yet.

Squid Shark on May 15, 2010 at 9:22 AM

Yes, it’s those conservatives in the White House and Congress who are using the Constitution as toilet paper, isn’t it?

Squiggy on May 15, 2010 at 6:55 AM

That is kind of my point, certain conservatives are more than happy to spit on due process rights and fair trial rights and parts of the first amendment and they get away with it because they wave their hands and say “look over there he is taking your guns!”

Squid Shark on May 15, 2010 at 9:24 AM

crr6, Constitutional rights are for citizens. That we misguidedly extend them to any non-citizen doesn’t change that fact.

SDN on May 15, 2010 at 8:46 AM

We dont extend them all to any non citizen. But yes, Criminal rights are extended to everyone accused of a crime.

Would you suggest a different procedure? Perhaps a mob hanging for people over here on green cards? Maybe forced confessions??

Squid Shark on May 15, 2010 at 9:27 AM

Huffpo likes Beck’s stance. Didn’t BillO go to Harvhard? I think he used to teach history. He moves all over the board on his positions from segment to segment. Tap dancing on FOX.

Kissmygrits on May 15, 2010 at 9:34 AM

Kissmygrits on May 15, 2010 at 9:34 AM

He’s always talking about his background as a teacher on his show. But if I’m not mistaken, his entire teaching career spanned less than a year, and in a substitute capacity.

Cylor on May 15, 2010 at 9:59 AM

The problem with libertarians is that too often they live in a fantasy world. They just do not see reality..why not legalize drugs and take the criminals out of it they say? Well..look at Mexico, how did that work out for them?

Terrye on May 15, 2010 at 7:02 AM

The legal drug trafficking in Mexico is not the source of the problems. It is the illegal drug trafficking in Mexico that is the source of the problems.

Slowburn on May 15, 2010 at 10:15 AM

Miranda rights aren’t constitutionally based.

taney71 on May 14, 2010 at 9:58 PM

heh.

crr6 on May 14, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Wow you destroyed taney. You were enlightening and engaging to boot. So much knowledge expressed in one word. Wow-just wow. /

Considering the SCOTUS has found a right to privacy in regards to abortion that does not exist and something called separation of church and state that does not exist I tend to be a little hestitant to jump on board that every decision is really based on the Constitution. Considering your view on the ruling over campaign finance I suspect we are in agreement here.

CWforFreedom on May 15, 2010 at 10:18 AM

Would you suggest a different procedure? Perhaps a mob hanging for people over here on green cards? Maybe forced confessions??

Squid Shark on May 15, 2010 at 9:27 AM

Yes that is exactly what he said./

You’re an arse

CWforFreedom on May 15, 2010 at 10:19 AM

Yes that is exactly what he said./

You’re an arse

CWforFreedom on May 15, 2010 at 10:19 AM

Well, what is the option. If the bill of rights does not apply to non-citizens that is the next step. You think that some police officers would not be more than happy to compell confessions if they know someone is not a citizen. If you do, I have some swampland for you.

It is not my fault when someone fails to think through their asinine statements.

Squid Shark on May 15, 2010 at 10:58 AM

Considering the SCOTUS has found a right to privacy in regards to abortion that does not exist and something called separation of church and state that does not exist I tend to be a little hestitant to jump on board that every decision is really based on the Constitution. Considering your view on the ruling over campaign finance I suspect we are in agreement here.

CWforFreedom on May 15, 2010 at 10:18 AM

Have you actually read Miranda? Or Griswold?

Squid Shark on May 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Dealing with domestic terrorist as criminals, is better than letting the authorities decide who will be allowed to have “rights”, and won’t be.

The Miranda Warning, informs the suspect of his constitutional rights. Whether, or not, “to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” does in fact require that the government pay for such counsel in the case of the indigent, may be open to interpretation, (I believe that it does) with the exception of the warning having to be read, there is nothing unconstitutional in the Miranda warning.

I have seen no evidence that the required Miranda Warning has materially increased the chances of a crime being committed against us. It has changed who is likely to commit the crime.

Better to have a hundred criminals released, than to have one innocent person convicted.

Slowburn on May 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Beck destroyed BOR. BOR reminded Beck that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war. Beck had to remind BOR that it was during a WAR. Then BOR tried to assert that we’re in a war on terror.

Barack Hussein has eliminated the GWOT. There is no longer a war on terror. No war, no reason to suspend rights.

So AP, it appears that you and I might have been watching two different programs.

drjohn on May 15, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Ahem, excuse me but why the ruffled feathers? Shahzad, as a citizen, is REMINDED of the protections afforded him under the constitution (which is what Miranda basically is, a reminder requirement). If he exercises his rights then questioning regarding the charges under which he is being held are suspended. That does not preclude questioning regarding others nor questioning involving the safety of the public.

The U.S. has enough, based on direct and circumstantial evidence, for a successful prosecution and conviction. If the U.S. is willing to forgo adding additional charges as a result of further questioning, then so be it and they proceed with the questioning.

Bottom line:

Does Shahzad deserve Miranda? Most certainly.

Does that stop the government from questioning (or interrogating) further? Most definitely not.

For Slowburn – the Gideon case answers the question you ask reference paying for a lawyer.

Another case to look at: Quarles.

dkeppner on May 15, 2010 at 11:28 AM

I watched this clip and was reminded why I don’t watch BOR anymore. Even on those occasions when he’s right, he’s annoying and off-putting.

SKYFOX on May 15, 2010 at 12:10 PM

In my opinion, and I’m no legal scholar, but…..this guy went against his country, and it’s citizens, when he decided to work for Pakistan, and terrorists. He took money from them, plans, and help from others.

When you intentionally make a move against your country, any rights, even miranda, should be null, and void. And YES! He should be tried in military court. What he’s done is treasonous.

capejasmine on May 15, 2010 at 12:26 PM

If a citizen has certain rights then all citizens have those same rights regardless of what they’ve done or more accurately what they’re accused of doing.

If something like a bomb is planted somewhere and the suspect’s rights are violated in order to get that bomb before it goes off then so be it. Those who got the information (by whatever means necessary) will have to answer themselves in court. Given the situation of life or death, they’d almost certainly be exonerated and might not even be prosecuted in the first place (though considering what happened to those two Border Patrol officers, I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one given how Lib our society’s become).

Police have the legal authority to break into a house without a warrant if they hear gun shots from within, someone screaming bloody murder and so on. As always, it depends upon the situation. Getting tazed just because you were speeding is unacceptable anywhere, but no jury would find it unacceptable if a suspect lunging at an officer was tazed. The situation within the framework of the law is what matters.

What Beck is arguing against is blanket authority to allow the government to treat certain individuals unfairly and those individuals might be you or I and our “crimes” could include merely having the wrong ideology as far as the government is concerned.

Personally, I don’t think that not having the i’s dotted, the t’s crossed and such negates the crime and should be grounds for letting the guilty walk or have evidence against them suppressed. A crime is a crime. Now, if the police can be shown to knowingly violate someone’s civil rights, then that can be handled as a separate matter and may include remuneration for the criminal, administrative discipline/fines for the officers or possibly even jail time for the officers if there’s proof of a conspiracy and of knowingly having denied a suspect of their rights.

Bottom line is that many of us don’t trust authority because we’ve seen too many over the years abuse that authority.

Lack of trust.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 15, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Miranda, in Shazad’s case, is irrelevant, because the intel needed to be wrung out of this murderous s.o.b. is more vital than any (non-military) trial or potential conviction.

You want to stop further terrorism.

If that means failing to Mirandize Shazad in order to intimidate info out of his sorry behind, who cares if that jeopardizes the likelihood of convicting him in a (civilian) court?

His treason should send his mass-murderous a$$ into a military tribunal and noose ASAP.

Beck confuses what we need to do to stop terrorst attacks from Shazad’s jihadi colleagues with legal niceties.

We need to kill MANY jihadis, not merely convict psychopathic such like Shazad.

profitsbeard on May 15, 2010 at 2:01 PM

…psychopathic such scum like Shjzad.

profitsbeard on May 15, 2010 at 2:04 PM

These rights don’t just kick in because they were read to you. You ALWAYS have this right! The reading of them is a technical formality to protect the prosecution during the ensuing trial. You can “Lawyer Up” or just clam up from the get go, leaving investigators with “enhanced interrogation” as their only option.

Miranda is a Red Herring

Pole-Cat on May 15, 2010 at 3:01 PM

Beck is thinking outside the box and for good reason with this administration. He knows this new rule will be used against any Americans they “deem” dangerous at some point down the line.

BOR is an idiot.

katy on May 14, 2010 at 10:42 PM

I concur. And concur again. Nothing more to say.

Who is John Galt on May 15, 2010 at 5:20 PM

A lot of people who are too worried about what the left might think of them so they have to act like Beck is an idiot.

The Notorious G.O.P on May 14, 2010 at 11:31 PM

They are more worried about what Allahpundit and his Droogs think than the left.

thomasaur on May 14, 2010 at 11:37 PM

Haha! The droogs wanna be Blog Stars!

Who is John Galt on May 15, 2010 at 5:23 PM

I haven’t been able to watch BO for the last couple of years. He’s so full of himself it’s pathetic. I’d rather watch “Tingles” and at least get a good laugh or two.

steelman on May 15, 2010 at 5:42 PM

Here is the reason for the concern, and I think I may be buying into it:

We (conservatives) spent a lot of time and energy complaining about giving rights to enemy combatants captured out of country. I agree, if you’re an enemy combatant captures on the battlefield out of the country, you’re dead meat and so’s your rights.

BUT: With this distinction comes the difference with someone captured within our own national borders. I think that extending things like Miranda to those even IN the country who are not legitimately here should not be done. However, if you are here legitimately, i.e., a citizen or naturalized, or here with legal status, then you are entitled to whatever constitutionally-derived rights we all have. (Whatever they may be)

Here’s another aspect that I’ve heard no one talking about: Miranda/5th Amendment rights have relevance ONLY in terms of the criminal defendant and his/her prosecution: It provides the basis for the “exclusionary rule” under which evidence/confessions, etc can be tossed out in a prosecution when obtained “illegally.” But, guess what? If you’re not prosecuting, forgetaboutit! Absent a prosecution, there’s no context in which to exclude any evidence. Just get the information and use it, and then…..well, let’s just say, worry about the corpus later on………

seanrobins on May 15, 2010 at 11:06 PM

In any case, Beck’s problem with denying Miranda rights to Shahzad seems to have less to do with concerns about obtaining actionable intelligence from terrorists than how the White House might exploit a Miranda loophole to grill people like, I guess, Glenn Beck. Advantage: O’Reilly.

Or people like, I guess, you and me . . . .

Remember, there is NO trusting the Obama Regime. That is my law, at least. If the regime likes it, beware.

It`s that simple.

Sherman1864 on May 16, 2010 at 4:36 AM