Were Miranda Rights Read To Faisal Shahzad? John McCain Hopes Not

by NowPublic Staff | May 4, 2010 at 09:52 am
764 views | 17 Recommendations | 27 comments

Photos

Faisal Shahzad Times Square Bomber Suspect

Faisal Shahzad Times Square Bomber Suspect

see larger image

uploaded by NowPublic Staff

Some Republicans Say Miranda Rights Should Not Be Read To Faisal Shahzad:

Senator John McCain appeared this morning on Imus in the morning saying NY Times Square attempted bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad should not be read his Miranda rights by the FBI.

But John Pistole, the Deputy Director of the FBI, confirmed in a news conference on Tuesday that Faisal Shazad was read his Miranda rights.

Earlier Senator John McCain said this about reading Faisal Shahzad his Miranda rights.


Obviously that would be a serious mistake...at least until we find out as much information we have," McCain said during an appearance on "Imus in the Morning" when asked whether the suspect, 30-year-old Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized American citizen from Pakistan.

John Pistole, said Faisal Shahzad was questioned first before being read his Miranda rights. The FBI says Shahzad provided useful information, and was latter read his Miranda rights, and he continues to provide useful information.

Advertisement
recommend Sign In or Join to post comments
1
Jordan Yerman

Reading the Miranda Rights does not grant those rights- the Fifth Amendment covers that. There are extenuating circumstances under which law enforcement officials can delay the reading of the Miranda Rights, but the Fifth Amendment isn't actually suspended.

1
Grace H

Yes, but if they are not read it is a breach of due process and he'ld be released on technicality.

1
Rory Cripps

The issue here is terrorism and the possibility that this punk is an enemy combatant with terrorist connections. Once he's read his rights, he doesn't have to say anything and he can let his mouthpiece do the talking.

1
nanute

He doesn't need to be mirandized to stop talking. All indications are he has been read his rights, and is nonetheless, talking. 

0
Rory Cripps

nanute: I say hang hang 'em high! Right in Times Square!

0
Rory Cripps

nanute: He doesn't have to talk if he's being treated as a criminal and not an enemy combatant. If he's being treated as an enemy combatant, then he can be interrogated by whatever means. JEEZ!

2
Grace H

McCain is full of shit. I can't believe I ever supported him. He's just playing politics.

If they didn't read him his Miranda rights he'd have to be freed anyway. This happened on American soil. They can't trump the law for the benefit of society or whatev other reason. To do that in any circumstance invalidated the entirety of the law.

 

1
Rory Cripps

Grace. He's being charged as a terrorist. If he's working with our enemies in the Middle East then he should be treated as an enemy combatant and thrown in Gitmo pending trial. Quite frankly if it were up to me I'd get as much info out of him as I could and then hang him or turn him over to our friends in the Middle East for decapitation. The rule of law shouldn't apply to terrorists.

3
Grace H

At the risk of being incredibly rude-- who are you (universally and otherwise)  to decide when all the letter of the law should apply? The audacity therein implies that this could be extrapolated to any other heinous crime. That's more of a threat to the posterity of America than terrorist bombings.

0
Rory Cripps

Grace: I don't care if you're incredibly rude! I like feisty women. You can call me every name in the book! I'm used to it! And I'm sure that you'd like to because I'm simply not some PC new age type out in left field with a hockey stick.

I simply don't think the U.S. Constitution should apply in this case if it's determined through interrogation that this SOB was acting on behalf  or in conjunction with overseas Muslim terrorists that have declared war on America. This is one of the reasons why we have so many terror cells here in the U.S. today that are just licking their chops to kill as many Americans as they can. It's no secret! Our government just plays the threat down for political reasons.

Up until now, there was not one war that America fought where enemy combatants were entitled to constitutional protections. This rule of law crap which the liberals and the progressives nowadays are claiming applies to enemy combatants has never been the case. But certain leftist ideologues  would have us believe that in WWII for example America gave every German and Japanese soldier that was captured a court trial and afforded them all the constitutional protections that a common American criminal received. 

These terrorists have declared war on America. Their goal is to kill as many Americans as they can. They take no prisoners. They will use any means to achieve their goal and they don't discriminate against the innocent. Every American--infants on up through the elderly--are their enemies. Quite frankly, I think that the Government and many Americans have lost their mind when it comes to coddling terrorists and wanting to afford them constitutional protections. And it scares the crap out of me because if the mindset continues, there will be more and more terrorists and terror cells springing up in the U.S.

0
Grace H

1. Blowback

2. Imperial Colonialism

3. Your example does not apply. That was a legitimate war of aggression. This was a domestic crime that thankfully failed. Should we treat mass murders ar terrorists? What about single victim murderers? Or drug dealers or at least the cartels? They are some psychotic people. And in some neighborhoods they arguably cause more terror.

A terrorist is anyone who causes terror. What is terror other than being forced to live in fear of some ill action. From there I could argue politicians are terrorists because they want us to constantly fear something in order to puch their agenda. From there I could argue the IRS are terrorists because a lot of people are scared as hell of them. What about cops? Ever been injustly treated? Beaten or harrassed?

Can we charge rapists as terrorists? That'll fuck a person up more than if they had been standing on the New York sidewalk watching the hell unfold.

Any one abjugation of the law would set precedent. Legal precedent in such  a manner would allow for subjective expansion of declaration thereof into other lesser crimes.

Actually your wrong there. We captured our enemies and held them in camps etc. They were either swapped or had their release negotiated. This is especially true in Germany. We didn't hang them, we didn't line them up against the wall and shoot them, and we didn't torture them. The exceptions herein being those tried at Nuremberg.

Also, if there are so many terror cells where is all the chaos? All the dead and dying? More children die each year of a variety of bullshit reasons. They play down the threat--are you kidding me? What was the Patriot act? What the hell is Iraq? Those were based in fear! Promoting fear to push idiocy by the mob should not be policy.

0
Rory Cripps

Grace: I give you credit for standing up for your beliefs and taking the time to express them here. Of course I don't agree with virtually all of what you say so we'll just have to agree to disagree. From your reply to my comment, it appears that you either misunderstood my points or that you're not willing to deal with them because they're a contradiction to your preconceived notions and leftist mindset.

My point was quite simple: If the SOB that attempted to set off the bomb in Times Square was working on behalf or in conjunction with Middle Eastern Muslim terrorists that have declared war on the U.S., then he is an enemy combatant engaged in an act of war against America and on American soil and he should be treated as such. One who serves within the ranks of an enemy that has declared war on the U.S. is not a criminal that should be afforded rights granted under the U.S. Constitution. America is at war. Muslim terrorists have declared war upon the U.S. During WWII, a group of German soldiers landed on the shores of Long Island. They were caught and later some of them were executed by the U.S. government.

I wish that I could say your failure to grasp the extent to which terrorist and terrorist cells are present and embedded within the U.S. is your problem. But unfortunately, it's all of our problems. And I think that your (and those of your mindset) failure to grasp the terrorist threat will ultimately get more Americans killed, prolong the war against terrorism, and foster an environment here in the U.S. that's conducive to the growth of terrorist cells.

In all due respect, you appear to have absolutely no idea of what occurred in WWII, how POWs were treated and handled, and what occurred on the battlefield. Indeed, by your standards and today's politically correct standards, a great many WWII combat veterans would have been convicted of war crimes. Moreover by those standards it wouldn't have been possible for America and its allies to defeat Germany and Japan. Due to my age, I had the benefit of knowing many that served in combat during WWII. Their stories and what we read in the history books nowadays are often at odds.

1
Rory Cripps

The term unlawful combatant has been used for the past century in legal literature, military manuals and case law.[3] The term "unlawful combatants" was first used in US municipal law in a 1942 United States Supreme Court decision in the case ex parte Quirin.[28] In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal over the trial of several German saboteurs in the US. This decision states (emphasis added and footnotes removed):

By universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

The validity of this case, as basis for denying prisoners in the War on Terrorism protection by the Geneva Conventions, has been disputed.[29][30][31] A report by the American Bar Association commenting on this case, states:

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States Congress passed a resolution known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) on 18 September 2001. In this, Congress invoked the War Powers Resolution and stated:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.[35]

Using the authorization granted to him by Congress, on 13 November 2001, President Bush issued a Presidential Military Order: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism"[36] which allowed "individuals ... to be detained, and, when tried, to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws by military tribunals", where such individuals are a member of the organization known as al Qa'ida; or has conspired or committed acts of international terrorism, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy. The order also specifies that the detainees are to be treated humanely.

The length of time for which a detention of such individuals can continue before being tried by a military tribunal is not specified in the military order. The military order uses the term "detainees" to describe the individuals detained under the military order. The U.S. administration chooses to describe the detainees held under the military order as "illegal enemy combatants".


0
Grace H

Very well. It seems I was mistaken. I concede such, but it doesn't affect my views herein.

However, "the order also specifies that the detainees are to be treated humanely."

Well isn't that a sham... Considering we try other people or at least indict them for acts against humanity ie. torture, genocides etc. its rather ironic that we do the very same thing in Cuba, whom we have no diplomatic or economic relations.

0
nanute

I don't think you are wrong Grace. Rory, as usual, is playing fast and loose with the facts. Furthermore, he is not a proponent of the rule of  law. Never has been. 


If you look closely at the resolution passed by Congress, and then President Bush's order, you will see very clearly that the order pertains to certain non-Citizens: Using the authorization granted to him by Congress, on 13 November 2001, President Bush issued a Presidential Military Order: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism"[36]

Perhaps, this is why Senator Lieberman wants to introduce legislation to strip citizenship rights from suspected terrorists. In Rory's and Senator Lieberman's world there are no suspects. Everyone is guilty and should not be afforded the right to be innocent until proven guilty, and should not be subject to our system of justice.

Furthermore, using the analogy of the German saboteurs, as a justification is not relevant under the current circumstances. Congress has not declared war against any nation state. We are not formally at war with Iraq or Afghanistan for that matter. In order for the unlawful combatant argument to apply, we'd have to be at war as declared by Congress.

Invoking the War Powers Resolution is problematic: The War Powers Resolution has been controversial since it became law,[2]. Every President since its passage has treated it as unconstitutional[3] and has claimed that the President is therefore not bound by its statutes. In passing the resolution, Congress specifically cites the Necessary and Proper Clause for its authority.[4] Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Arguing that anyone can be deemed an enemy combatant and therefor not subject to the rule of law is problematic, and runs counter to the fundamentals of our system of government. It is easy to argue in favor of dispensing with normal judicial proceedings in the case of terrorist actions. It is also very dangerous. What about the case of the Hutarre Militia? Could these American citizens be deemed at war with the United States, and classified as enemy combatants? No they can't. The reason is because they are American citizens, just as the Times Square bomber is.

If you'd like to see a great piece on this crazy notion of conservative justice, may I suggest this link:    

Dr. Sig Heiler and Associates


0
Grace H

Ps. since you like WWII:

More or less the same amount of people were killed at Pearl Harbor. Yet this was not terrorism was it? It was an act of war albeit unexpected? We rounded up Japanese and similar during WWII not Germans, not Austrians. Why? Are you, at the risk of being presumptuous, saying we should do he same? Round up anyone of any Middle Eastern decent and put them in Concentration camps?

Also, the very minute we succumb to living in fear they have won. The very second we change our laws and lifestyles they have won. So I guess at this rate we must concede defeat...

We are a free democracy not a totalitarian state. Go ask anyone how that worked out in Russia, where under similiar idoelogy Stalin killed 20,000,000 of his own damn people and put many more in gulags simply because he didn't want to lose his grip on power and security.

0
Rory Cripps

Grace:

"Also, the very minute we succumb to living in fear they have won. The very second we change our laws and lifestyles they have won. So I guess at this rate we must concede defeat.."

If you happen to be standing in the vicinity of a suicide bomber one day and the bomb goes off and blows someone's guts and body parts all over you and you lose part of your face and limbs, then I think at that point  you'll have an understanding of fear. As to changing our laws: There are no laws stating that enemy combatants, who have declared war on the U.S. and have engaged in acts of war against the U.S. on American soil, are subject to the same rights under the U.S. constitution as are common criminals.

2
nanute

Yes. He's guilty until proven innocent. Sounds like Stalinist rhetoric to me.

2
Grace H

I do not exactly doubt his guilt; however, there is no excuse for circumventing the judicial process.

2
Susan Marie Kovalinsky

I agree with you.  A terrorist is a criminal, like any other.  Once you treat them as outside the process,  then more and more actions will begin to be labeled as "terrorist".  He has rights to due process,  in my opinion.  I am sure he is guilty as hell, too.  

1
Rory Cripps

SM:  Come on Sis! You'd probably get a kick out of poking them through the bars with a sharp stick! :) I said it with a smile on my face! See! :)

2
Susan Marie Kovalinsky

I would NOT!!

0
Rory Cripps

SM: Of course you wouldn't! I was just funnin' you! I have no doubt that you're one of the most compassionate and humanitarian-minded people on the face of the earth. And you wouldn't even dream of hurting a fly.  ;)


0
Rory Cripps

nanute: I though Stalin was your hero! You share so many of his ideological views. HA!

2
nanute

You tell em' Grace! Pointing out the obvious is not rude. Don't apologize for stating the obvious.

0
Rory Cripps

nanute: YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! The only thing that's obvious to you is a left-handed smoke shifter. :) I said it with a smile on my face.

0
Alfonse Javed

It is very interesting to read both Grace and Rory comments. It felt like two conscious trying to convince oneself. I have been persecuted by my own country men but yet I believe there is good  and evil in this world. Faisal's background and circumstances are not much different than many of the other American. I met a guy from Bangladesh and he is so disappointed about his decision to come to the United States of America. Recently a Latino guy mugged him leaving him almost dead. I used to stay out for late since the his incident I don't. I was in the Time Square on Saturday with my team reaching out a Muslim guy (I am a Christian missionary in New York City) and I would not be surprised if we see more and more incident like this. You see in Pakistan it is every day routine,  and now after Pakistan Iraq and Afghanistan has become target of such bomb explosions. What we need to do is to tight our security, and stop playing political games in our beloved countries. In Pakistan one political parties threaten the other political party with massive bomb explosions throughout the country. This the formula they have used for decades and still they are doing it and unfortunately he is successful. Governments get weaken and threaten and eventually the other political party takes over and than the vicious circle continues. This is how the political game has been played in Pakistan, lack of unity and no purpose to build the nation results into self destruction. We are going away from God and His word, in the name of equal rights, human rights and all sort of rights we as nation have forgotten the foundation of our beloved country the United States of America. United means we are one, and we are the only country in the world which is so diverse, New York City alone has 800 languages representing 800 ethic groups. As the times passes our responsibility to increase efforts to keep our country united grows. This country has been safe haven for every human in the world and she shall remain safe haven, we can argue that Muslims are terrorist but remember the Freedom a Muslim enjoys here is absent in his or her own country. Faisal is one out of many Muslims who has taken the path which should not be taken by anyone but his personal decision should not give us reason to hate Muslims or Pakistanis but reminds us how we need to be more careful in adopting other cultures.

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

Jordan Yerman
First Flagged at 9:58 AM, May 4, 2010 by Jordan Yerman
These members have powered this story:

Related Stories

Recommendations (17)

Most recently recommended by:
 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from