Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Times Square bombing arrest allows GOP to revive 'Miranda' debate

By Paul Kane, Shailagh Murray and Matt DeLong

After the news late Monday that federal authorities arrested Faisal Shahzad in connection with Saturday's botched car bombing in New York's Times Square, congressional Republicans wasted no time in reviving the debate on whether to read Miranda rights to a terror suspect. The Miranda issue rose to prominence in the aftermath of the failed attempt to blow up an airliner on Christmas Day. It was reported that the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, stopped providing information after he was read his rights following 50 minutes of interrogation.

In remarks Tuesday morning, President Obama did not say when Shahzad was read his Miranda rights. In a news conference at the Justice Department, FBI Deputy Director John Pistole said Shahzad was initially interrogated by the FBI under the "public safety exception to the Miranda rule" and provided "valuable" intelligence and evidence. Pistole said Shahzad was later Mirandized and "continued to cooperate and provide valuable information." Pistole declined to say how long Shahzad was in custody before he was Mirandized.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), appearing on Don Imus's morning talk show, came out hard against affording Shahzad, a naturalized American citizen, his constitutional 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, should be given his constitutional rights.

"Don't give this guy his Miranda rights until we find out what it's all about," McCain added.

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), told Politico that Holder should make the decision in consultation with intelligence officials.

"I hope that [Attorney General Eric] Holder did discuss this with the intelligence community. If they believe they got enough from him, how much more should they get? Did they Mirandize him? I know he's an American citizen but still," King told Politico.

"I hope that if they did read him his rights and if they are going for an indictment as opposed to a tribunal that he did discuss it with the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, all the component parts of the intelligence community," King said.

"If someone acts like a terrorist and cooperates with people intent on war against the United States, they should be treated as terrorists and not as a common criminal. And no, they should not be read their Miranda rights," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who along with McCain is senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee.

While not specifically referring to Miranda rights, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) alluded to the issue on the Senate floor.

"Hopefully the appropriate officials are using this opportunity to exploit as much intelligence as he may have about his overseas connections and any other plots against Americans either here or abroad."

Meanwhile, conservative firebrand talk show host Glenn Beck came out in favor of reading Shahzad his Miranda rights.

"He is a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens," the bombastic Fox News host said to the stunned co-hosts of "Fox and Friends". "If you are a citizen, you obey the law and follow the Constitution. [Shahzad] has all the rights under the Constitution."

"We don't shred the Constitution when it is popular," Beck added. "We do the right thing."

Democrats agreed.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, suggested that the FBI had done "one heck of a job" so far, emphasizing the need to move Shahzad through the U.S. court system to secure a guilty verdict. "Since he's arrested here in the United States, he's an American citizen, he's going to be entitled to the same rights that other American citizens have. So, you want to make sure you can try and convict this guy, and if you don't do it right, you can mess up your own trial and conviction. So you've got to do it right. Otherwise you're working against yourself, whatever the rights are, including the Miranda warning," Levin said.

"This is a U.S. citizen, arrested on U.S. soil, subject to the constitutional protections and constraints of every U.S. citizen. ... I think it's pretty well-settled law," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), appearing on Fox News, suggested changing the law to strip the citizenship -- and in turn the rights afforded by the Constitution -- from any American who becomes involved with terrorism.

I think it's time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship, and therefore be deprived of rights that come with that citizenship when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist act.

Florida Senate GOP candidate Marco Rubio said he was unsure if Shahzad should be Mirandized.

"It all depends on how they're going to try him," Rubio said when asked if the suspect deserced to be read his rights. "If this individual has information that could help us prevent future attacks and loss of life, nothing should stand in the way of that, including Miranda [rights]."

And former New York Gov. George Pataki (R), rumored to be weighing a presidential bid in 2012, declined to call Shahzad's apprehension a success.

"I don't think you call it victory. I think victory would be being able to prevent these before they get to that point where you have a loaded van in Times Square," he said. "I think it's more a question of lucky. The fact that the van started to smoke and we had a courageous individual who went out and notified the police and then we have a great police and fire department that reacted brilliantly."

Updated at 5:12 p.m.

By 44 Editor  |  May 4, 2010; 12:24 PM ET
Categories:  44 The Obama Presidency  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Florida GOP puts Charlie Crist painting on eBay
Next: Obama sits down with Diane Wood in latest Supreme Court meeting

Comments

Throw this on the heap of reasons I think LieberBush should get the F*&$K out of my government and go crawl back under the rock he came from. Welcome to America all you fascist, hate-filled, country-wrecking, un-American pigs destroying my America. I look forward to my opportunity November 5th to not vote for you again in another government sweeping election.

Posted by: Davol | May 7, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

If you follow Lieberman's bill you would have a long list of Americans losing their citizenship because they are involved in terrorism. Start for instance with members of the CIA, how about Xe or those miliary types who run all the black ops. If you think that are not involved in terrorism you are a fool. Or did I misunderstand Lieiberman's idea, was it only to apply to Americans who create terrorism in the US and not those Americans that do it all over the rest of the world?

Posted by: Archie1954 | May 6, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

From all indications, this guy is giving all the infomation needed to prosecute him and fingering others involved. This was done without torture. This is what the CIA and other agencies have said is more effective than torture. VP Cheney is a twisted man who had led his party away from the rule of law. Republicans need to support the constiturion and the law. For the sake of our country, knock it off.

Posted by: A_VOICE_OF_CONCERN | May 5, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Okay, I think I see how it should work; we need to be a country that follows the rule of law when convenient. Terrorist who murder abortion doctors will be Mirandized, terrorist who are incompetent will be put on a plane, sent to a gulag and tortured . . . even if they are cooperative.

We had to undermine the Soviet Union so that we could adopt their practices? Gulags and tortue and pain, oh my!

Posted by: Renaud21 | May 5, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Do the Republicans know anything other than using the end to justify the means?

There is sound basis for not reading Miranda to a non-citizen. Beyond human rights, immigrant rights is a damn contradiction in terms. That applies to terrorist bombers no more or less than border crossers.

This guy is an American citizen. He's entitled. I think (and hope) that he's also a prime subject for execution. Whether authorities more knowledgeable re all that's involved want to barter that for information is above me and a bunch of not really bright politicians.

Posted by: winger1 | May 5, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Do the Republicans know anything other than using the end to justify the means?

There is sound basis for not reading Miranda to a non-citizen. Beyond human rights, immigrant rights is a damn contradiction in terms. That applies to terrorist bombers no more or less than border crossers.

This guy is an American citizen. He's entitled. I think (and hope) that he's also a prime subject for execution. Whether authorities more knowledgeable re all that's involved want to barter that for information is above me and a bunch of not really bright politicians.

Posted by: winger1 | May 5, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Strip Lieberman of his citizenship, he doesn't deserve it. He can go to Israel, they'll love him over there.

As far as the GOP, hey, you're in bed with the tea baggers and the follow the Constitution. Well it was the Supreme Court that said Mirandize. So follow the law. Don't play politics with law and the police. Which is what you're doing. How about we get all the Republicans, round them up and put them in FEMA camps. We're at war, they're a threat to the nation. They don't want to pay taxes, so they can eat grass and drink rainwater for all I care. Set the camps up in Arizona since they love that state so much, McCain can have more camps than he can count to stay in.

The guy is talking. they're getting information. Miranda worked. you think the FBI and the NYPD can't handle a suspect? Can't do an interrogation? What idiots are in the GOP? The lower end of the IQ curve?

Posted by: dhssresearcher | May 5, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

In most cases it is FEAR that is used to strip citizens of any country of their rights to freedom!!! Just wondering at what point in history that the republicans are going to get tired of using the same old weapon on the American people and how long it will take for the people they brainwash to realize it!!

Posted by: nettie526 | May 5, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

The real headline is the number of Republicans coming out of the woodwork to do this and the willingness of the MSM to act as their pawns and disseminate tripe without exploring motive or intent. It is not about Miranda; it is about discrediting the Obama administration in any and every way possible or imagined.

I keep hoping the US citizenry is not as easily manipulated as the MSM.

If you are going to cover this stuff, at least note the underlying intent. It seems pretty transparent to me.

Posted by: pbkritek | May 5, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Wasn't George Pataki governor of New York on 9/11? He overlooks the fact that the George Bush administration may have been lax in their terrorism vigilance, thus making the US vulnerable to the 9/11 attack. He and the other Republicans who are nipping at the heels of the Obama administration are blatantly hypocritical and political. Attacks like the attempted Times Square bombing are going to the a part of the American scene, I fear. I don't think a Republican administration would make us any safer.

Posted by: b_kussow | May 5, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Anyone arrested on US soil must be Mirandized, period. To do less would put us in the group containing Iran, China, N. Korea etc.
I hope the lack of Miranda rights will derail the prosecution of Shahzad on the most serious charges. How this was done is shameful - even Glenn Beck gets it.

Posted by: Davidd1 | May 5, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Whether he is a U.S. citizen or not is irrelevant. He was on American soil and therefore our laws are applied. Americans who are overseas are subject to the laws of the country they are visiting/living/etc.

How can someone be an elected official and say such stupid things? If they don't know American law/Constitution they should be impeached.

Posted by: rlj1 | May 5, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

I want to puke.

Even Glen Beck, GLEN EFFING BECK!, sees the hypocrisy in this

Posted by: joebanks | May 5, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

URGENT TO POTUS & TEAM OBAMA (staff, pls. fwd. via Gibbs, Axelrod, Emanuel, Plouffe, Jarrett)

THE MOST SERIOUS TERRORIST THREAT TO AMERICANS:

U.S. MICROWAVE / RADIO FREQUENCY SILENT TORTURE AND IMPAIRMENT OF U.S. CITIZENS...

...ATROCITIES INHERITED FROM BUSH-CHENEY.

HOMELAND 'TORTURE TOWERS' ENSLAVE AMERICANS IN MICROWAVE GHETTO: VETERAN JOURNALIST

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america OR NowPublic.com/scrivener

Vic Livingston is on Facebook -- when he's not being censored by a warrantless surveillance and censorship regime.

Posted by: scrivener50 | May 5, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

There is NO debate only right-wing morons who have not bothered to read our Constitution!

An American citizen is entitled to all the laws and will be held accountable when he breaks those same laws.

Pandering to right wing fanatics and the neo-con warmongering chicken hawks may excite the reactionary teabagging 20%--(I am sure Dick Cheney is laughing his ass off) but the Post has no business wasting ink giving it a platform!

Posted by: suec716 | May 5, 2010 7:03 AM | Report abuse

I have not read comments, but I assume that some here are against the Miranda Rights. Well folks this guy is NOT KSM or the 'underwear bomber', he is a naturalized US citizen. So please, let him get his right to remain silent, then if the evidence proves he meant to kill fellow citizens, give him the death penalty. He can have his 'rights', but he is a traitor to our country and should be put to death even faster than that idiot McVey was after the Oklahoma City bombing. They are one in the same!

Posted by: jpgr1967 | May 4, 2010 11:17 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans have always disliked Miranda. Actually, they'd prefer that we do away with public defenders. Really, shouldn't only those who can afford a lawyer have a lawyer?

Posted by: Keesvan | May 4, 2010 11:13 PM | Report abuse

The primary word in "terror suspect" is "suspect", just as in "robbery suspect". All "suspects" are read their CONSTITUTIONAL rights. The righties want to emphasize "terror" which is to emphasise the ancillary part of the term. Regardless of what he is suspected of, the arrestee is still only a "suspect".

And, Does anyone have a definition of what a "terrorist" is anyways. Who gets to make the definition? Could we use Hugo Chavez's, how about Robspierre's? Adolph's? Gandhi's? Jesus'? Could you be one someday just for being an undesirable citizen by someome else's definition?

First they came for X, but I wasn't one of them so I wasn't to concerned....And then.....And then...And then....And then they came for me, or you.

What is the line again about those who would forsake liberty for security usually end up with neither.

The GOP, doing their best to lead us forward into a dictatorial police state where the rule of law is replaced by executive fiat.

Posted by: jmdziuban1 | May 4, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Exactly how big of an attack will it take those of you, so very concerned about terrorists rights, to change your minds? Or does it have to happen in your backyard, and personally affect you or your loved ones?

---------------------------

I live in Oklahoma Ciy about 1.5 miles from where Tim McVeigh blew up the Federal Building. I felt the impact at my place of work about 0.5 miles away. My kids felt the impact at their elementary school. The cousin of my best friend died in the bombing. The husband of one of my co-workers is a surviver

I will never change my mind on the rights of US citizens. The government does not give us these rights, they are our as defined by the constitution.

Tim McVeigh was aprehended by law enforcemnt, tried in court, and executed according to the laws of this land. The NYC bomber has been arrested and will soon be charged. Eventually he will be tried and sentenced according to the law.

The fact that the bomber is a citizen by naturalization has no bearing on the way he is treated in the justice system. My son was born in another country and adopted by us as a young child. He is a naturalized citizen and and Army soldier who has served two deployments in Iraq. Naturalaized citizens should be treated in exactly the same way as natural born citizens.

Posted by: MsAlley1 | May 4, 2010 10:50 PM | Report abuse

US Citizens are afforded unique rights in America that non-Americans are not. Under the US Constitution, the collective American people have the right to disband our government at any point and time we wish. However if the government can simply labels us as terrorist and our constitutional rights disappear how is America any different than totalitarian types of government.

Posted by: KenneyPCO | May 4, 2010 10:43 PM | Report abuse

I'm trying to follow the argument here but need a little help. What, exactly, does it mean to be "Mirandized"? Do rights regarding self-incrimination only kick-in at the point that these rights are actually "read out" to the subject,
Posted by: PeterIII

~~~

The Miranda warning is a warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody, or in a custodial situation, before they are interrogated.

A custodial situation is one in which the suspect's freedom of movement is restrained (judged by the "free to leave" test), even if he is not under arrest. An elicited incriminating statement by a suspect will not constitute admissible evidence unless the suspect was informed of his/her "Miranda rights" and made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights.

However, a 2004 Supreme Court ruling upheld state "stop-and-identify" laws, allowing police in those jurisdictions to require biographical information such as name, date of birth, and address, without arresting suspects or providing them Miranda warnings.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | May 4, 2010 10:37 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: askgees | May 4, 2010 9:01 PM:

"So you're so sup1d that you think non Americans fall under the Rights set forth by the US Constitution. LOL Our school's are doing a wonderful job. Pathetic!!!!!
--

You may want to read the Bill of Rights, as well as other sections of the US Constitution restricting government power.

For instance, if a British tourist is arrested for a crime in the U.S., authorities must still avoid "cruel and unusual punishment." Otherwise it would be legal to, say, grab a Canadian off the street, torture them and hold them without trial until that person died.

Think about it. Think about what you are saying. And if you REALLY knew your Constitution (see Declaration of Independence, where rights are conferred at birth by God or Nature ... "We hold these truths to be self evident ...."), you would know it confers no rights, but rather prevents the government from violating them.

Lesson over.

Posted by: bluicebank | May 4, 2010 10:34 PM | Report abuse

askgees wrote:

Ignorance is bliss. And you have stup1d down pat. Get an education m0r0n....

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Okay! just as long as I don't go to the school you came from

Can anyone say? stup1d or m0r0n

Posted by: dove369 | May 4, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Too funny. I bet your ignorant @zz sits around and watches TV so you more than likely watched plenty of investigative shows (first 48 hr's) and time and time again watched as they question suspects and even hold them before they break. Guess what they do RIGHT AFTER THE CONFESSION. ARREST THEM. I can't believe you have the intelligence to turn on the PC.

Perhaps everyone of the criminals that confessed thought the same thing you did????? LOL

Posted by: askgees | May 4, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Folks like Lieberman and McCain and others who insist on following the Extremist Right-Wing definition of legalities sure do insists on MUCKING UP our Judicial System, but only when it suits their Right-Wing agenda.

Why do these ignorant people think the rest of the nation is as ignorant as them when it comes to our laws and their real M.O.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | May 4, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

Is that so??? Would that be anything like the OJ trial??? it took years cost the CA tax payers millions and we WALKED!!!! Did you applaud that day????

Hopefully this puts it into prospective for you.

Posted by: askgees |

~~~

I am sure they read O.J. his Miranda Rights the day he was arrested, Goober.

The bottom line is he was READ HIS RIGHTS, tried in a U.S., Court of Law, and NOT found guilty because he had a damn good lawyer that was able to convince the jury that the "glove did not fit".

The bottom line is he went through the judicial system like any other criminal, but had a damn good lawyer to get him off.

What makes you think you people have the right to change the rules of law when those rules don't quite fit into you all's square heads. The rule applies to every one, regardless of color, race, religious, or political background.

Hopefully, that puts it into perspective for you, Goober.

Btw, Simpson walked, and NOT WE WALKED!!!!.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | May 4, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

I'm trying to follow the argument here but need a little help. What, exactly, does it mean to be "Mirandized"? Do rights regarding self-incrimination only kick-in at the point that these rights are actually "read out" to the subject, or do they apply from the very start of an interrogation, regardless of when the Miranda warning is articulated?

If someone says something before they are reminded that they don't have to say something can the something they said be used against them?

Posted by: PeterIII | May 4, 2010 10:28 PM | Report abuse

So, as usual, when the grit of our democracy is put under pressure, the republicans want to shred the Constitution.

Whatever happened to "America, land of the free and home of the brave"?

For today's conservatives, it's "land of the scared poo-less, and home of the chickenhearted."

Posted by: losthorizon10 | May 4, 2010 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Yes and yet you LIBS just believe what ever they tell you LOL I wonder what the Nazi's told 6 million Jews was in the box to get them to JUST WALK IN with out a fight. LIBS at their finest moment. Sorry but someone advising you of your right TO COUNSEL is one thing but as I stated they can question you and if you freely answer so be it. But they can hold anyone for up to 72 hours before filling charges. But this hardly is the be all end all as you nut jobs try to spin it. It's sad to think that you are this out of touch with reality truthfully. Also just a suggestion. Read a little early 1900 history with respect to law. Poor lostsoul10

Posted by: askgees | May 4, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

askgees wrote:

Ignorance is bliss. And you have stup1d down pat. Get an education m0r0n....

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Okay! just as long as I don't go to the school you came from

Can anyone say? stup1d or m0r0n

Posted by: dove369 | May 4, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Upholding the rule of law is an inseparable part of national security. The conservative mantra of glorifying terrorists by labeling them as "enemy combatants" is conterproductive. This is exactly what they want. It is a much wiser choice of actions to dismiss them as what they are: criminals. Don't give these dirtbags a way out of a conviction by not following the law. Miranda rights are prescribed by law, and law enforcement should not give these guys' lawyers a way out by not following the law.

Posted by: RuEb10 | May 4, 2010 10:19 PM | Report abuse

This is laughable, albeit not the least bit funny; only those that have never served their country in the military or a war zone would consider such pathetic legal double-talk for the enemy. I fought in Vietnam, and can see it now, the VC (vietcong) shooting AK-47's like crazy, running a sapper over the wire with his satchel charges, and just before he hits the wire; let's read him his FREAKING Miranda rights. Only an idiot would consider such nonsense.

Posted by: techresmgt | May 4, 2010 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Folks like Lieberman and McCain and others who insist on following the Extremist Right-Wing definition of legalities sure do insists on MUCKING UP our Judicial System, but only when it suits their Right-Wing agenda.

Why do these ignorant people think the rest of the nation is as ignorant as them when it comes to our laws and their real M.O.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | May 4, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

Is that so??? Would that be anything like the OJ trial??? it took years cost the CA tax payers millions and we WALKED!!!! Did you applaud that day????

Hopefully this puts it into prospective for you.

Posted by: askgees | May 4, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Folks like Lieberman and McCain and others who insist on following the Extremist Right-Wing definition of legalities sure do insists on MUCKING UP our Judicial System, but only when it suits their Right-Wing agenda.

Why do these ignorant people think the rest of the nation is as ignorant as them when it comes to our laws and their real M.O.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | May 4, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

While I often disagree with Sen. McCain I've always respected his opinion. So much for that, Senator. You blew it, sir. The suspect is an American citizen who was arrested on U.S. soil. He is entitled to his rights, regardless of the circumstances.
It sounds as though the authorities behaved properly and according to the law, which is more than I can say for those politicians who seem to feel it's OK to disregard the Constitution when it's not politically popular.
Have you forgotten that you swore an oath to uphold the Constitution -- how about paying attention to that for a change?

Posted by: 1MadHatter | May 4, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

What a stupid debate. This guy was a naturalized citizen, so he gets all the protections of a US citizen. That one is a no brainer. The law and constitution are clear. It is Obama and Holder conferring US citizenship rights on foreign terrorist suspects.

Posted by: thelaw1 | May 4, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Folks like Lieberman and McCain and others who insist on following the Extremist Right-Wing definition of legalities sure do insists on MUCKING UP our Judicial System.

Why do these people act so ignorant when it comes to the laws of our nation?

Posted by: lcarter0311 | May 4, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

WHO WON?

Osama Bin Laden.

It's obvious that the "Ideal of America" is dead.

God bless America. It was really special once-upon-a-time.

Posted by: TOMHERE | May 4, 2010 10:01 PM | Report abuse

So, as usual, when the grit of our democracy is put under pressure, the republicans want to shred the Constitution.

Whatever happened to "America, land of the free and home of the brave"?

For today's conservatives, it's "land of the scared poo-less, and home of the chickenhearted."

Posted by: losthorizon10 | May 4, 2010 9:57 PM | Report abuse

So, as usual, when the grit of our democracy is put under pressure, the republicans want to shred the Constitution.

Whatever happened to "America, land of the free and home of the brave"?

For today's conservatives, it's "land of the scared poo-less, and home of the chickenhearted."

Posted by: losthorizon10 | May 4, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Dear Sirs,
Remember when the far right accused Janet Reno of being a Nazi because she upheld our federal immigration laws in the Elian Gonzales case?
Her FBI also caught Timothy McVeigh and handed him over to John Ashcroft.
It should have been a piece of cake.
However, as Ashcroft pointed out in his book, NEVER AGAIN, the case was so botched that McVeigh almost walked!
Both Senator Joseph McCarthy and Mr. Conservative, Senator Robert Taft, claimed that Hermann Goring did not get a fair trial at Nuremberg.
Did he?
Clifford Spencer

Posted by: yankeefan1925 | May 4, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

In what is to me a stunning turn of events, I actually find myself applauding Glenn Beck for intellectual honesty. John McCain has consistently advocated "security" over constitutional protections. He has previously indicated he would be willing to give up constitutional speech protections to fight "terrorism" as well. I admire him for his service to his country, but there are times I feel like he has forgotten what he was fighting for. The core ideas of free speech and due process that are protected by the Bill of Rights - "fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions" and that are "implicit in a concept of ordered liberty," to quote the Supreme Court on more than one occasion - are what separate us from those who are trying to destroy us. We are not the winners in any way if terrorism succeeds in changing what we are.

Posted by: mycroft42 | May 4, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

It is more that a little concerning to see American lawmakers actually asking the question whether the American citizen suspect has Miranda rights.

You have to wonder what other rights these elected representatives are looking at doing away with...


Posted by: Chapringo | May 4, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

They can hold you AN AMERICAN for 72 hours with out charges. The point the REPS are making is, as long as you have this option and the person is willing to talk why would you give him a reason to stop???? But all you smart people can't see past your own ridiculous opinions. It's quite sad.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
askgees....

Remind me to stay stupid, so as long as I'll never "ask" you anything...Gee!

Posted by: dove369 | May 4, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse


Ignorance is bliss. And you have stup1d down pat. Get an education m0r0n....

Posted by: askgees | May 4, 2010 9:42 PM | Report abuse

So once again the so called conservatives prove what real cowards they are. They are again willing to give up our hard fought freedoms for the sake of a false sense of security. McCain has lost all sense of right and wrong and has joined the cowards in suggesting the shredding of the Constitution.

Posted by: rcasero | May 4, 2010 9:40 PM | Report abuse

The GOP would have us just tear up the Constitution, yup, just tear it up and put on those old Brown Shirts. The Repubs, Rush Limbaugh "Lemmings" and their ilk are pushing this country to the point where our system will be in real jeopardy. We may now be in process of watching a great experiment come apart slowly by millionaire demagogues and no one is doing anything about it. In the name of free speech these so-called conservatives are killing all speech and no one is doing anything about it...o'say can you see?

Posted by: october30 | May 4, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

LOL last month you and you band of ret@rds chastised the Supreme Court and their decision regarding campaign advertising. Now you actually do a 180. You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer....

Posted by: askgees | May 4, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

They can hold you AN AMERICAN for 72 hours with out charges. The point the REPS are making is, as long as you have this option and the person is willing to talk why would you give him a reason to stop???? But all you smart people can't see past your own ridiculous opinions. It's quite sad.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
askgees....

Remind me to stay stupid, so as long as I'll never "ask" you anything...Gee!

Posted by: dove369 | May 4, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse

askgees....

Remind me to stay stupid, so as long I'll never "ask" you anything...Gee!

Posted by: dove369 | May 4, 2010 9:35 PM | Report abuse

If the congressional Republicans are so set on ignoring the Constitutional rights granted a U.S. citizen, naturalized or native, does that mean we need to be careful in how they apply the law to others? Case in point, they ignore the fact that the teabaggers in fact could be construed to be terrorists. Should these people be mirandized and taken to jail? The congressional Republicans were outside the U.S. Capitol taunting them on. And these are the same group that have sent threatening messages to federal government officials. Does that mean accessory to terrorists should not be mirandized? And what about those illegals in AZ who go to work, seek to keep a roof over their family's head and three square meals a day, should these people who are not citizens, who function as the symbol of what America is all about and don't commit crimes, other than just being an undocumented worker...should they be mirandized and eventually exported? Just how should the law be applied? Is it expressly for those who feel they aren't committing terrorists acts or better still please define terrorist. A stalker could be construed to be one. But then again one could misconstrue someone who walks the same route day in and day out to get to and from work, but just is behind you or on the other side of the street, to be a stalker. The vagueries need to be defined. If you think I'm being facetious, step away from this situation as it were and understand it's not I who is being facetious.

Posted by: ewjazzed | May 4, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

The new GOP symbol---a jackbooted elephant.

Posted by: 20steveltd | May 4, 2010 9:33 PM | Report abuse

On a couple moment's reflection, it occurred to me that the authors of this piece are just as guilty as the Republicans for reporting this nonsense as if it were actually a reasonable debate with two sides.

Paul Kane, Shailagh Murray and Matt DeLong... how about calling a spade a spade (or a fascist a fascist as it were?)

Posted by: wideblacksky | May 4, 2010 9:33 PM | Report abuse

They can hold you AN AMERICAN for 72 hours with out charges. The point the REPS are making is, as long as you have this option and the person is willing to talk why would you give him a reason to stop???? But all you smart people can't see past your own ridiculous opinions. It's quite sad.

Posted by: askgees | May 4, 2010 9:30 PM | Report abuse

The GOP would have us just tear up the Constitution, yup, just tear it up and put on those old Brown Shirts. The Repubs, Rush Limbaugh "Lemmings" and their ilk are pushing this country to the point where our system will be in real jeopardy. We may now be in process of watching a great experiment come apart slowly by millionaire demagogues and no one is doing anything about it. In the name of free speech these so-called conservatives are killing all speech and no one is doing anything about it...o'say can you see?

Posted by: october30 | May 4, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Wow the right wing is a bunch of hypocrites and idiots.

Posted by: wideblacksky | May 4, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

You know what's more scarier than a terrorist bombing attempt?....

Thinking...what if?...John McCain was President 44 and he had Lindsey Graham as Secretary of State and Joe Lieberman as Secretary of Defense and don't forget Sara Palin as VP....Shoot! I have nightmares just thinking about it! I do believe those folks would have created America's armageddon!

Posted by: dove369 | May 4, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

"I think it's time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship"

You tell 'em, Joe! Like, for example, someone who chooses to become affiliated with Mossad. Anybody you know in that category, Joe?

Posted by: laboo | May 4, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

"I think it's time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship"

You tell 'em, Joe! Like, for example, someone who chooses to become affiliated with Mossad. Anybody you know in that category, Joe?

Posted by: laboo | May 4, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Strict Constructionists.....Except when they aren't.

To whom are these scumbags pandering? It's not thinking Americans.

Posted by: JoeMck | May 4, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

The Repubs have resorted to just throwing out overheated nonsense that has nothing to do with the rule of law. It excites the nutjobs who make up the last threadbare remnants of whatever base they had. Lieberman and McCain's shells went soft a long time ago, and you know the GOP just hates the whole concept of Miranda for anyone in general.

Posted by: fluxgirl | May 4, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

The guy is a nationalized citizen, so if he had not been read his rights, this case would have been tied up in the appeal process for years, and most likely would have been thrown out. The GOP is a party grasping for straws. They have no solutions to any problems, their "be afraid of everything" mantra is wearing thin. Their "big business will work it all out if the government will just leave them alone" (see Enron, AIG, Lehman Brothers)just isn't working out. President Obama can do absolutely nothing right in their eyes. Dear GOP, don't go away mad, just go away.

Posted by: stuckintraffictoo | May 4, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse

"It all depends on how they're going to try him," Rubio said when asked if the suspect deserved to be read his rights. "If this individual has information that could help us prevent future attacks and loss of life, nothing should stand in the way of that, including Miranda [rights]."

The words of a fascist.

I suggest Rubio either swear an oath to the Constitution, NOW, or give up his bid to be a public servant, where swearing to defend the Constitution is required. I mean, I wouldn't want the man to lie...

Posted by: Fate1 | May 4, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Hello, summer, good place for shopping, fashion, sexy, personality, maturity, from here to begin. Are you ready?
http://www.needaseller.com
New era cap $15
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini)$16
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
Handbags(Coach,ed hardy,lv,d&g) $35
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
http://www.needaseller.com
FREE sHIPPING

Posted by: rrwytruertywerywer | May 4, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

I am so sick and tired of these old gray headed foxes making statements that is reckless to our National Security...just for the sake of riling the base of raising poll numbers....

And instead of the media...

THANKING THE NYPD AND FBI AND OTHERS WHOM ASSISTED IN THE SWIFTNESS ARREST IN LESS THAN 54 HOURS.....

They are quoting of these old politicians pulling comments outta of their old wrinkle butt's...WHICH WOULD PROBABLY MAKE US A TARGET PRACTICE FOR THESE NUTS ATTEMPTED TERRORIST BOMBINGS!

ANYONE WHO VOTE REPUBLICANS IN NOVEMBER IS A GOT-DARN IDIOT....AND THAT IS NO GOT-DAMN LIE!!!!!

Posted by: dove369 | May 4, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

You know it is the GOP when its members advocate torture and suspension of Constitutional rights for people accused of terrorist acts. Heck. Why not tear the thing up and renounce the oath of office high elected officials solemnly take? Truth be known, the GOP wants Our Country to be ruled by a reactionary despot, who will establish a state religion to which all citizens must belong with mandatory chapel attendance.

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | May 4, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Do you live in a trailer??? You sure are an id10t. You do know it was the REPS that freed the slaves then gave colored and women equal rights???? It would appear that you really have no idea what you are even talking about. Now run along and spank your monkey while salivating over a pic of Maddow.

Posted by: askgees | May 4, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

So what the senators are saying is that our system doesn't work, our constitution doesn't work, our courts don't work and that there's no justice to be had except to cart people away to back rooms and find their own justice. It's sorry that Gov Pataki would classify this as not a victory and use it for such low publicity. At least these politicians aren't from my state. The US deserve better.

Posted by: allaire | May 4, 2010 9:10 PM | Report abuse

What the right wing is telling us is that rich kid lacrosse players who murder women are just a lot better class of killer than terrorists.

This is a prime example of bleeding heart conservatives telling us that Wall Street Bankers, Gulf Oil disaster moguls and rich kid murders should be treated better than the rest of us.

Posted by: colonelpanic | May 4, 2010 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Oh my God. I just read Lieberman's insane comments. This is really getting kind of scary. I know he's no longer a Democrat, but even though he's a neoconservative I assumed he was still a democrat. Apparently, he believes in an authoritarian form of government rather than our Constitutional Republic. He's dead wrong. He's so wrong that I don't even know if it makes any sense to talk to him, rather than simply ignoring him and voting him out of office the first chance the State of Connecticut gets.

Posted by: ejs2 | May 4, 2010 9:08 PM | Report abuse

When did following the Constitution become optional? McCain has debased and embarrassed himself repeatedly in his efforts to hold on to office by pandering to the right-wing extremists in the Republican party. For him to say that it was a "mistake" to read an American citizen his rights in America as he was being arrested for committing a crime in America is really shameful. Does McCain think we should just throw the entire Constitution out the window in service to the cause of his re-election?

Posted by: ejs2 | May 4, 2010 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Why not? you're doing it for Obama.

Posted by: askgees | May 4, 2010 9:06 PM | Report abuse

When did following the Constitution become optional? McCain has debased and embarrassed himself repeatedly in his efforts to hold on to office by pandering to the right-wing extremists in the Republican party. For him to say that it was a "mistake" to read an American citizen his rights in America as he was being arrested for committing a crime in America is really shameful. Does McCain think we should just throw the entire Constitution out the window in service to the cause of his re-election?

Posted by: ejs2 | May 4, 2010 9:03 PM | Report abuse

You know it is the GOP when its members advocate torture and suspension of Constitutional rights for people accused of terrorist acts. Heck. Why not tear the thing up and renounce the oath of office high elected officials solemnly take? Truth be known, the GOP wants Our Country to be ruled by a reactionary despot, who will establish a state religion to which all citizens must belong with mandatory chapel attendance.

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | May 4, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Of course terrorists should be read their rights! It doesn't matter what kind of criminal they are or whether they jaywalked, sold government secrets to a foreign government or detonated a bomb. Even Hitler would have needed to know his rights, not that any charges against him should be thrown own if they don't read them to him.

Posted by: heatherczerniak | May 4, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse


So you're so sup1d that you think non Americans fall under the Rights set forth by the US Constitution. LOL Our school's are doing a wonderful job. Pathetic!!!!!
--

Posted by: askgees | May 4, 2010 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Why do republicans hate the Constitution and everything America stands for ?

Posted by: Fate1 | May 4, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Its a sad day for America when Glen Beck makes more sense and knows more about Constitutional law than a US Senator and a US Senator wannabe.

Posted by: fudador | May 4, 2010 8:54 PM | Report abuse

The creep was arrested, so what is all the fuss about? I guess the GOP must always say something whether or not it is plain silly.

Posted by: truth1 | May 4, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Stinking worthless conservatives and other republikans are always trying to deny Americans their rights, one way or another. Dam these worthless republikans, for they are far more dangerous than terrorists. Terrorists only kill people and destroy property. Stinking conservatives will destroy the Constitution.

Posted by: fudador | May 4, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Liberman's comments are plain stupid. His suggestion of a law that automatically strips someone of citizenship would fail the first time it was tried and a terrorist criminal would likely walk free. Please, Senator Liberman if this is your understanding of the constitution, resign now as you are not competent to serve in the Senate.

I believe the appropriate crime for conspiring with foreign powers would be treason in addition to other crimes that were attempted or carried out.

Posted by: chucko2 | May 4, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

I don't think anyone like it if he were set free because he hadn't been read his rights. The Miranda issue is a non issue--pure politics. The weight of law is such that confessions can be extracted after Miranda rights are read. In this case, the public safety exception worked, and apparently the suspect has continued to talk. So what's all the noise about? Politics.

Posted by: scientist1 | May 4, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Obama was God's answer to McCain's prayer for wanting to become president!

Posted by: AverageJane | May 4, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Of course terrorists should be read their rights! It doesn't matter what kind of criminal they are or whether they jaywalked, sold government secrets to a foreign government or detonated a bomb. Even Hitler would have needed to know his rights, not that any charges against him should be thrown own if they don't read them to him.

Posted by: heatherczerniak | May 4, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Hang on....aren't Republicans the ones who are saying Obama is violating the Constitution? Yet here they explicitly want to do exactly that?

Just lock him up without trial and stick him in Gitmo...Sadaam would be proud!

Posted by: Chops2 | May 4, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

There you have it. GOP believes that there are cases in which American Citizens should not be granted Constitutional rights.

Posted by: rcc_2000 | May 4, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), told Politico that Holder should make the decision in consultation with intelligence officials.

"I hope that [Attorney General Eric] Holder did discuss this with the intelligence community. If they believe they got enough from him, how much more should they get? Did they Mirandize him? I know he's an American citizen but still," King told Politico.

but, but, but......still....although he's a citizen, he's not white and doesn't look like Sarah Palin's idea of a True American and he certainly isn't Christian and he's a registered Democrat and we all know our Lord Cheney has aready "gotten around the law" trampling on the Constitution in the "war on terror" and in our righteous culture war against Obama, liberals, socialists, bed-wetters, gays, Mexicans, victims of Catholic child abuse and non-believers. No Constitutional rights for them, no sirrreee!

From Wikipedia:

In a September 2007 interview with the website Politico.com, King said that "There are too many mosques in this country... There are too many people sympathetic to radical Islam. We should be looking at them more carefully and finding out how we can infiltrate them."

Catholic King:

On July 5, 2009, shortly after the death of Michael Jackson, King made a video statement calling the late entertainer a "child molester". He also chided the media for its coverage of Jackson's death:
“ Let’s knock out the psychobabble. He was a pervert, a child molester, he was a pedophile. And to be giving this much coverage to him, day in and day out, what does it say about us as a country? I just think we’re too politically correct. No one wants to stand up and say we don’t need Michael Jackson. He died, he had some talent, fine. There’s men and women dying every day in Afghanistan. Let’s give them the credit they deserve

Posted by: areyousaying | May 4, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Hell, as long as we're denying constitutional rights, let's outlaw Republicans.

Posted by: Genefox1 | May 4, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Pataki, McCain, Cornyn, McConnell...all a bunch of baffoons. You've got to read this guy his Miranda rights or you'll let him get off on a technicality. This guy is an American citizen and is innocent until proven guilty. THAT'S THE LAW PEOPLE. It doesn't matter that he's a homegrown terrorist. And I can't believe Pataki and his comments that the Obama Administration is doing things AFTER the fact...how absurd. The intelligence community caught the suspect in under 54 hours, 54 George. We should be singing praises for this gov't, the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security and our intelligence agnecies. If the Bush administration had caught this guy this quick the GOP would be talking out of the other side of their mouths and saying, "Oh our President and intelligence community did the most marvelous job in apprehending this terrorist"!

Posted by: creamycajunguy | May 4, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

A1965bigdog wrote: Under the rules of war, by comitting an act of war in civilian clothes, the man is a spy, and as such, is subject to a military tribunal (death penalty). And as a US Citizen, comitting an act of war against the US makes him a traitor, yet again, subject to the death penalty. Knock him off.
------------------------
Which war was he fighting in, exactly? I don't recall us being at war with the State of Connecticut (where he lived) or the Country of Pakistan (where he emigrated from)... Or were you referring to the War on Terrorism? ;-)

Posted by: jgmann | May 4, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

This is the first time I have agreed with Glenn Beck.

Since he is an American citizen who was arrested on American soil, according to the Supreme court he must have his Miranda rights given.

This is settled law. If we start backtracking on this law then this will be a slippery slope.

Posted by: maritza1 | May 4, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

I never thought I would agree with Glenn Beck, but this one time he has gotten it right. The guy has certain inalienable rights, which we hold to be self evident.

It is not a weakness in our system that we respect those rights for even our most detestable criminals.... it is our biggest strength.

We should be proud of it. Eric Holder should go on Al Jazzera and explain to the world how our justice system works.

Right now, we have a strong suspicion that this guy is a terrorist, but we won't take away any of his rights until he has been charged, tried and convicted. Only when the evidence has been reviewed at a fair trial will his rights be taken away, so that our law abiding citizens are protected from the danger he represents.

If the FBI has done its job right, the evidence will be overwhelming and he will be found guilty.

If the FBI gave in to political pressure to make an arrest, and they just grabbed the first poor slob who bought a 1-way ticket to the middle east, then that will come out in court and he should be set free. (I very much doubt that happened, but the genius of our political system is that it considers the possibility. From time to time parts of our system can go bad and it doesn’t bring down the whole government.)

We don't cut people's heads off on live TV, and we don't lock people up and throw away the key without a fair trial. Only evil people do that sort of thing.

Posted by: rwolf01 | May 4, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Glenn Beck is at least smarter than a 5th grader. When it comes to the Constitution we can't say the same about Lieberman, McConnell and McCain.

As someone else here posted:

Did Lieberman ask for the AIPAC spies to be stripped of their citizenship?

Posted by: areyousaying | May 4, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Joe Lieberman: take away the citizenship of citizens with foreign allegiance. Starting with Joe Lieberman.

Posted by: thrh | May 4, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Casey1 wrote: Put him out to pasture, Nevada. He's a goner.
----------------------
Uhmmmm, it's Arizona. You know, like Nevada but without all the fun stuff to do there...

Posted by: jgmann | May 4, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Forget about Miranda rights. Just don't issue anymore H1B visas to goons like this and they won't get into the country.

Posted by: Pebble1776 | May 4, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

I was a bit surprised that Glenn Beck came out in support of Miranda rights, but I guess we can't be hypocrites 24/7, can we?

Posted by: ravensfan20008 | May 4, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Read him his rights. He is a naturalized citizen of the U.S.A.
If you are willing to give up rights for security you are a coward.
Tea Partiers talk it like you walk it. If you espouse to the founders' way of dealing with tyranny, then let out the cry across the land,"Live Free or Die!"
If you are just going to use this as an excuse to make political hay against the President, your fight against tyranny rings hollow.
No protests about BP paying, anger against the President over obeying The Constitution. Where is the moral compass?

Posted by: ripper368 | May 4, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Pataki is getting as senile as McCain. I wish someone had asked the old fart just exactly what he would have done differently.

We are going to have terrorist attacks forever. The only difference will be how often and how well they are executed.

McVeigh - the right-wing NRA guy - was good. This guy was an idiot. But even an idiot with a computer can figure how how to make a car bomb, and they will happen again.

If we had a police state like North Korea, we'd be real secure. But thank god we don't. And thank god the Republican ashls who would rather see our country destroyed rather than see our president successful are in the process of destroying their party and their voice.

Posted by: Casey1 | May 4, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

All persons within this country should be afforded our constitutional rights. The Constitution does not include any qualifier limiting the right against self-incrimination and the other rights included in the Fifth Amendment. This element of the Bill of Rights applies to "persons," not just citizens, Christians, gun-fanatics, etc.

While there are some relatively rare circumstances in which the full Fifth Amendment may not apply, would those of my party (i.e., the Republican Party) suggest eliminating or otherwise restricting its application for other terror-related suspects.

Where were they when the so-called Christian militia members in Michigan were arrested for conspiring to assassinate police officers - an act of terrorism? The Obama administration Justice Department argued against bail, but the judge has released them on bail.

Has the recently-rabid Senator McCain spoken out against affording these white, gun-toting, "Christians" with their constitutional rights?

Where is the hue and cry about that case of potential home-grown terrorism?

- Is it the native born citizenship of those in Michigan versus the naturalization of the New York terrorist suspect?

- Is it their strange, wacko brand of Christianity versus the contorted interpretation of Islam likely followed by the New York terrorist suspect?

- Is it the pasty white complexion of the Midwesterners versus the brown features of the New York terrorist suspect?

If we selectively dole out constitutional rights now, the precedent should frighten all of us protected by the Constitution - citizens, permanent residents, legal aliens, and illegal aliens.

Sen. McCain has lost my respect and support, both electoral and monetary.

Posted by: demostheneswashdc | May 4, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse


To ChrisFord1: I hope not quite as stupid and uniformed as your comment. My comment is based on actual data and real life. Your comment is based on TV, and not even good TV. The fact is, Miranda warnings almost never stop an interrogation. That my not jive with your TV legal education, but its a fact.
------------------------------------------
Just how stupid do you think the American public is? It almost goes by rote: "OK, I won't say anything until lawyer arrives"
Lawyer arrives. "You didn't say a word to them, right? Good!" hereby inform law enforcement that this accused is no represented by counsel and will not speak until I fully understand the charges and discuss and deals or arrangements in my clients best interests. If you insist on questioning my new client, questioning will only be conducted with myself or a member of my law firm present to advise"

This is called "lawyering up".

Posted by: ChrisFord1

Posted by: feeney | May 4, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Once again, Republicans are demonstrating just how little tolerance they have for constitutional government. Why not just hang the suspect on the spot? Personally, I believe that our laws and procedures are among the best on earth and that to abandon them in the face of the arrest some young zealot is to give these suspects more power than they deserve.

Posted by: CJackson36 | May 4, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

The one guy who should shut up and get out of the way is John McCain. He only shows up when there is something spectacular going on and then he runs his mouth to excess. The FBI has the guy and will process him without the advice and consent of McCain. The suspect is an American and has rights. The law enforcement side of the house can handle him without interference from the Senate.

Posted by: ronjeske | May 4, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Republicans have allowed habeus corpus to be suspended. They have allowed people to be held indefinitely without being charged. Now they want to deny american citizens the right to be mirandized. Yet they somehow still have the american public believing that the democrats are the ones who take away individual liberties by, gasp, passing health care reform.

If we keep going down the road they would have us on, we will be in a no win situation. If the terrorists win they will have taken away all of our constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms in the name of their cause. If the republicans win we will have given them up voluntarily in the name of "national security" and "freedom". Either way we loose.

Posted by: johnqpublic1 | May 4, 2010 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Life, as I know it, has ceased to exist. I agree with Glen Beck. How did my life go so wrong???

Posted by: misfit614 | May 4, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Life, as I know it, has ceased to exist. I agree with Glen Beck. How did my life go so wrong???

Posted by: misfit614 | May 4, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Anyone suggesting a suspect should not be Mirandized is effectively advocating that the suspect be able to go free.

ANY person arrested on US soil is protected by certain amendments to the US Constitution, which are restrictions on US government power.

Laying aside the anti-US Constitution aspect of comments by people like Sen. McCain, I can think of no worse thing to do with a terrorist suspect than to provide him an easy "get out of jail free" card.

Posted by: bluicebank | May 4, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

"After the news late Monday that federal authorities arrested Faisal Shahzad in connection with Saturday's botched car bombing in New York's Times Square, congressional Republicans wasted no time in.." smearing, jeering and sneering at the President, trying to make more negative political hay, while they conveniently overlook the fact that, like it or not, this guy is an American citizen entitled to his Constitutional rights the same as the rest of their old white Huckabees.

Posted by: areyousaying | May 4, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

I'm sick of Conservatives using the Constitution as toilet paper. Unfortunately, Faisal Shahzad is an American citizen and must be treated as such. The terrorist Timothy McVeigh, also an American citizen, was read his Miranda rights and tried in federal court. Although Conservatives have in their own mind modified what constitutes a terrorist act since 9/11, a terrorist or terrorists intent on killing Americans, whether in 1993, 1995, 2001, or 2010, is the same. I hope Conservatives aren't suggesting that terrorists who are naturalized American citizens with foreign connections be treated differently than American born terrorists with ties to extremist groups in the U.S.

Posted by: jimsillan | May 4, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Your link to a Wall Street Journal opinion page article on Abdulmutallab presents an inaccurate picture of his interrogation. Although he initially ceased cooperating, he later resumed talking and has continued to do so. See
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/02/plane.bomb.suspect/

Posted by: noahmass | May 4, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Joe Lieberman. I would not trust old Joe on just about anything. His loyalty is so all his! What a shame on the people of Connecticut for keeping this person in the US Senate.

Posted by: likovid | May 4, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Sen. McCain, whose senility was on display during the campaign, has lost it completely. If his wife loves him (though recent history suggests she and her daughter can't stand to be anywhere near him) she'd have him committed for medical tests. Maybe she's waiting until after he loses the election.

Too bad he's going into the darkness as such an embittered, angry man. He abandoned his principles and made a mockery of his own senatorial career. He's worse than a has-been - he an 80 year old fossil who can't remember from one day to the next what he believes in or even what he SAYS he believes in.

Put him out to pasture, Nevada. He's a goner.

Posted by: Casey1 | May 4, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

For advocating the overthrow of Constitutional government, Joe Lieberman should be stripped of his office and tried for treason.

Posted by: bigbrother1 | May 4, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Great.

I gather this means the Party Of No are going to be using this as a political ploy to reintroduce us to the American Patriot Vote. You know--the poor republican things with plastic flags on the cars types.

But they already have the American Patriot Vote.

So what's the gain, Party Of No? To further annoy your non-base?

Posted by: binkynh | May 4, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Glenn Beck said something that was reasonable and made sense.

Wow! Two pigs just flew by my window!

Posted by: EKruse | May 4, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

john1263 - "What absolute horse crap. He is an AMerican citizen committing crimes on American soil"

No, he is a Pakistani citizen who holds 2 Pakistani passports. He also got naturalized US citizenship less than a year ago, conditional on his loyalty oath and swearing he had no connection to terrorist groups, among other things.
After training with enemy Islamoids in N Waziristan and attending machine gun training and "bomb-making school" he returned to the USA to launch a Jihad attack on infidels.

I guess it is how you look at it. Lefties tend to immediate rush out blubbering about "US Citizenship" and "Precious terrorist rights" anytime some Islamoid Enemy Within is involved in an Attack.

Rushing to explain it wasn't Jihad but a "senseless crime committed by a civilian"!

For the life of me I cannot understand the liberal-Lefty irresistable urge to explain away Islamic terrorism as a crime like check bouncing or armed robbery/

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | May 4, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Republicans waste no time turning against the elected President of the United States no matter WHAT the issue is.
They are the Party of NO. They have announced it innumeral times, declared it virtually every day, and spend their lives objecting to every single thing.
Here we are, in a position of having apprehended an international terrorist within a very short period of time, and they are complaining. They are criticizing ALL, and EACH, of our law enforcement people for NOT doing a good enough job.
Jimminy Christmas, Jimminy Cricket, Jimminiy, Jimmiiny, they support NO ONE who has kept us safe.
Makes a person start to wonder whether or not they would LIKE to see a terrorist succeed in order to further their own domestic political quest of power. Dirtbags, one and all.

Posted by: cms1 | May 4, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

The actions of the Obama administration have been impeccable. The Idiot Bomber is giving up his associates in Pakistan and they are been mopped up as we speak. There is nothing in the whole sequence of events that they could have done better.

Contrast that with the Bush/Cheney torture promoters who haven't convicted a single terrorist in their military kangaroo courts.

McCain and the rest of the GOP anklebiters are just pissed because once again, a smart man in the white house has demonstrated what smart government can do.

Posted by: Casey1 | May 4, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Oh boy.

First, the issue here isn't Miranda "rights," it's a Miranda WARNING. Everyone has the rights. The Miranda case said that the police had to make sure that people knew and understood those rights before being detained and questioned by the police.

Second, the police don't have to give people a Miranda warning. If, however, they don't, none of the information they obtain during the interogation is admissible in court against the defendant. It's more complicated than that but that's the general idea.

So if the police arrest a terrorist suspect and the suspect is spilling his guts and providing lots of great information, the police don't have to interupt him and give him a Miranda warning. They can gather as much info as they want and use it to thwart current and future terrorist operations. What they can't do is use that information against the suspect in court -- unless, of course, he has been Mirandized.

So the police can do what they want, they just can't have it both ways.

Finally, most Constitutional rights don't spring from citizenship. If you are arrested, at least in the U.S., you have certain rights with respect to the criminal justice system -- the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, etc. It doesn't matter whether you are American or Chinese or Martian. So -- and I'm sorry if this disappoints anyone -- stripping people of their U.S. citizenship isn't going to authorize the police to torture them.

All it would really mean is that they could be deported after they had served their time. That's often not possible as these people aren't citizens of anywhere else. Even naturalized citizens are required to give up their prior citizenship as part of the naturalization process, though many can file more paper work to become dual citizens if their former countries permit.

And where do y'all plan on sending, say Timothy McVeigh or Jose Padilla?

Posted by: anon99 | May 4, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

He is an American citizen and is entitled to the rights of an American citizen. All of the rights of an American citizen, not just those that seem to be convenient or popular at the time. Those rights include a swift trial by a jury of his peers in a formal court of law. In America, a citizen is innocent until proven guilty. Treating him differently will lead us one step closer to anarchy in this country.

Posted by: Aramis1 | May 4, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

What absolute horse crap. He is an AMerican citizen committing crimes on American soil. This is just political nonsesne from the party of no ideas, no respect for our laws, no understanding of American vlaues or ideals, and no regard for our Constitution. What a disgraceful bunch of scum bags.

Posted by: John1263 | May 4, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

"...public safety exception to the Miranda rule" ..
exceptions to law.....how arbitrary..how subjective...how "democratic"...how EUROPEAN.

Arbitrary Federal government cherrypicking the application of laws that it is SUPPOSED to abide by....that is a good definition of a tyranny.

And we fought AGAINST this kind of philosophy and government in WW2 and the Cold War....looks like we didn't really "win".......

Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace............

Posted by: ChrisBieber | May 4, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Jeez. Even Beck knows you can't do shorthand Constitutional amendments based just because it feels good.

I have previously offered a label for people like McConnell; "Circumstantially flexible strict constructionists".

Also see "War on Drugs - What 4th Amendment?"

Posted by: st50taw | May 4, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Hey. People we don't like we just ignore the constitution. Why are we reviving this Bush-era demagoguery? Do we really have so many politicians who are either uneducated in our own political system or simply ignorant? Shame on Mr. McCain for seizing on this just to hold on to his Senate seat. Our great country is known for its laws and its fairness. Everybody gets a fair shake. We weren't always perfect but we always tried. Now some will have us be remembered for doing away with our principles? If that's not the recipe for the downfall of America, I don't know what is.

Posted by: longjohns | May 4, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Good lord.

The neo-cons on the Supreme Court rule guns for everybody and then close the front entrance of their iconic American building and run and hide in the basement.

And now conservatives want to change the rules the strip constitutional rights away from U.S. citizens depending on the circumstances?

I'm so glad I don't live my life in fear and hiding and unconstitutionality like American conservatives.

Posted by: markiejoe | May 4, 2010 6:43 PM |*******************
*********************
Under the rules of war, by comitting an act of war in civilian clothes, the man is a spy, and as such, is subject to a military tribunal (death penalty). And as a US Citizen, comitting an act of war against the US makes him a traitor, yet again, subject to the death penalty. Knock him off.

Posted by: A1965bigdog | May 4, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

The GOP is wrong on this one but not far off. What needs to happen is preventing foreign Muslims from naturalization?

Posted by: cleancut77 | May 4, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

I am as conservative as they come... but this guy is and American citizen for better or worse. He, unlike the forign terrorist, does have all the rights under the Constitution as any native born American.

I hope he burns in hell for being a terrorist but not without his rights as a U.S. Citizen.

Mark A. Wriht
HMC(SS),USN,RET

Posted by: markandbeth92 | May 4, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

I recall just after 9/11 when for a time politicians transcended their petty self-intrests and worked together to help support national security. Now it seems during this time of war that Republicans are incapable of seeing beyond their drive to accumulate power. One can in good conscience question their patriotism as they try to undercut the Commander-in-Chief.

Posted by: jahysell | May 4, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Basically, it appears the GOP and their rabid followers just want to rewrite the rules to suit their current desires. But then, that is not based in the Rule of Law, that is based on the Rule of "Whatever suits my current whims for Satisfaction".

This leads to arbitrariness and confusion, which leads then to no real Law at all. But it will make us all feel temporarily better and self-satisfied with ourslves.

Posted by: jmdziuban1 | May 4, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Oh, this is juicy! That moron McCain is coming on like a fascist, trying to turn the US into a police state (which I thought was the antithesis of what most of the Tea Party gang prefers) while Glenn Beck stands up for the Constitution.

Can things get any more bizarre?????

Posted by: BwanaDik | May 4, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

As a Leftist, you are likely ignorant that naturalized citizenship status is CONDITIONAL.Posted by: ChrisFord1


--

Nothing in Lieberman's statement as explained and quoted in this article makes any mention of naturalized citizenship. It refers "American citizens" in general. Furthermore, "involved with" evidently means "accused of" since Miranda rights only refer to the accused. Your apparent effort to defend the likes of Lieberman is weak in the extreme.

Posted by: twm1 | May 4, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

The Supreme Court has already recognized that if there is an immediate danger to public safety you don't have to read the Miranda rights until you have dealt with that first. And in that case it was only a handgun thrown out in a super market. Therefore, if there was a ticking bomb, the police could deal with this guy first. See New York v. Quarles. So the argument that Constitutional protections like Miranda are a danger to national security is false. Beware the McCains and Liebermans.

Posted by: christopherdeneve | May 4, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

These "terrorists" are just lousy common criminals. They should be treated the same as other lousy criminals.

-No fancy military tribunals.
-No torture.
- Nothing to single them out.

No special treatment that makes them appear as superhuman martyrs. If we act like they are unimportant criminals, it takes all of the glamour and excitement away. Young men will be less likely to do stupid things if they know the end result is a boring trial and a boring life sentence.

Posted by: homer4 | May 4, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

What is the difference between reading a "terror suspect" his rights and reading an "imbezzlement" suspect his rights? It appears the GOP is emphasizing the wrong words for political points. The primary word is "suspect", "terror" and "embezzlement" are secondary, and thus of lesser importance, to "suspect". All "suspects", by rule of law grounded in the Constitution are read their "rights". Why? Because it is a CONSTUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT!! Why is this so difficult for the GOP to understand? Oh, because they do not want to, no political red meat for the rabid masses that way.

So Rats! It is so annoying to the GOP when that danged US Constitution thingy keeps getting in their way of creating a police state.

Posted by: jmdziuban1 | May 4, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Good lord.

The neo-cons on the Supreme Court rule guns for everybody and then close the front entrance of their iconic American building and run and hide in the basement.

And now conservatives want to change the rules the strip constitutional rights away from U.S. citizens depending on the circumstances?

I'm so glad I don't live my life in fear and hiding and unconstitutionality like American conservatives.

Posted by: markiejoe | May 4, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

McCain and Leiberman both need handlers. These two old men just spout more and more inanities and both are desperate to hold on to their jobs even though neither has the ability to perform rationally. McConnell, a chinless limp noodle of a man, should practice shutting up. Nothing he utters means anything to anyone but himself. He does the good people of Tennessee no good by parading his incompetence before the cameras at every chance. But I guess when you are doing nothing else for the money you get from the tax paying citizenry, you must get face time to prove you're still in Washington.
This criminal bomb-making reject is no different than McVeigh and should meet the same justice. Walk him to the death room and let him sweat it out everyday wondering which will be the day he dies.
So go ahead read him his Miranda rights and march him into the first courtroom available. I have no problem with Miranda rights being read to any criminal nor problem with lethal injections. American justice that abides by our Constitution is the best justice, unless you are a wimpy Congressmen who is up for reelection. Someone please read McCain his Miranda rights.

Posted by: papafritz571 | May 4, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

This guy committed an act of war on our home territory. He was dressed in civilian clothes, not in a military uniform. As such, under the rules of war, he is a spy, which makes him subject to the death penalty after being tried before a military tribunal. Moreover, as a US Citizen, that also makes him a traitor, also subject to the death penalty. Try him, convict him, strip his US Citizenship, then execute him by firing squad, with the entire firing squad being female. Throw the book at him and humiliate him.

Posted by: A1965bigdog | May 4, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Exactly how big of an attack will it take those of you, so very concerned about terrorists rights, to change your minds? Or does it have to happen in your backyard, and personally affect you or your loved ones?

==========================================

Even 9/11 didn't sway my belief that the Constitution should stand no matter what. I would rather suffer another terrorist attack than throw out the Constitution in an effort to selfishly keep safe those things and people that are dear to me. Some things are more important than my selfish desires. Call me uncaring if you will. But at the end of the day, you and I will both have our rights.

Posted by: damascuspride04 | May 4, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

TO: goosefrabba who wrote:
"The terrorist is a registered DEMOCRAT and should be beaten as such."
_______________________


Lying never gets old to Republicans.

I'm beginning to believe that no Republican is even CAPABLE of telling the truth because lying has sunk too deep into their blood.


Posted by: lindalovejones | May 4, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

By threatening to strip a citizen of his citizenship, the elected officials have violated their oath of office (to uphold the constitution), and should be impeached.
Posted by: entmathias

As a Leftist, you are likely ignorant that naturalized citizenship status is CONDITIONAL. If they are naturalized citizens found guilty of lying on their application, lying while taking their oath of loyalty - they can be stripped of their citizenship immediately. And deported as an undesirable alien, as the minimum consequence. Obviously, being a traitor and working with the Islamoid enemy to kill Americans makes for massive consequences on top of the soon to go "bye-bye!" to the Islamoid's citizenship (and his wife's if she is complicit)
The may also be stripped of naturalized citizenship and deported after imprisonment for a variety of felonies.

We just stripped that guy Demanjuk of his citizenship and deported him after 60 years of living in the US and 55 years of naturalized citizen status because the guy lied on his application about being a guard at a Nazi camp.


Posted by: ChrisFord1 | May 4, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

The Republican leadership has become like the old Soviet leadership- just ignore the Constitution. When person like Glen Beck makes more sense than the Republican leadership, you know it is end of the Republican party. What has happened to McCain- I never thought he will say-ignore the rule of law. Would he say same thing about right wing milita?

Posted by: ak1967 | May 4, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

I say the Republicans are right...far,far right!

Why do Republicans hate the US Constitution?

If they can argue the Constitution impliedly reserves certain powers to the states and use that assumption to support disobeying federal laws, then why not say that the express right against self incrimination is out the window?

These yappers need to brought to heel and told to shaddap! The Constitution apllies to all of us, or the Contitution appies to none of us! Choose whether you are real Americans, my Republican friends!

Posted by: timothyhogan | May 4, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Republibamas have no gun they don't want to buy, or one constitution they don't want to overturn!

They hate America.

So there.

Ha.

Posted by: bs2004 | May 4, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Did Lieberman ask for the AIPAC spies to be stripped of their citizenship?

Posted by: phillipmarlowe | May 4, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are scary. Like it or not, this is an American citizen we're talking about. If they charge him without reading him his Miranda rights, he could get off. Guess who'd be howling the loudest about that?

LOL at Glenn Beck's ratings falling so far. I suppose people have gotten wise to his antics.

Posted by: chi-town | May 4, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

"If we're going to start stripping people of US citizenship for terrorist acts, as Lieberman suggests, why only those who collaborate with "foreign" groups? Let's start with the guy who killed the abortion doctor and the guy who flew a plane into IRS headquarters. Or, again, is it only terrorism if the perpetrator isn't white?
Posted by: dnfree"

------------------

I don't think you understand the difference between Islamoids doing terrorism because they adhere to and obey the instructions of a foreign enemy - and domestic malcontents using terror but not committing de facto treason.

---------------------

So Timothy McVeigh was not a terrorist? And bombing a federal building was not treason. I suppose you considered him simply a "malcontent." Sorry, but their are large number of domestic enemies in our country.

Posted by: sr31 | May 4, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

The irresponsible demagoguery on this and related issues and the corresponding stunning public ignorance and indifference to fundamental traditions of American liberty, as evidenced in recent polls, now clearly constitute a serious threat to the fundamental principles and effective survival of American democracy, such as I, for one, never thought to see in my lifetime, having been only a child during the 50s Red Scare.

Posted by: washpost29 | May 4, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

By threatening to strip a citizen of his citizenship, the elected officials have violated their oath of office (to uphold the constitution), and should be impeached.

Posted by: entmathias | May 4, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

End the warfare state and eventually terrorism ends. Otherwise this war, just like all the other ones (War on drugs, war on poverty..) will NEVER END. We're one attack away from a police state.

Posted by: FatLibertarian | May 4, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Notice that Lieberman, who no longer deserves to have the honorific "Senator" before his name, suggests that suspects should be "automatically" stripped of their citizenship if they are simply "apprehended and charged" with a terrorist act, i.e. before any bother with a trial or anything old-fashioned like that. That is sick and disgusting. Any American who thinks these right-wing fascists will confine their campaign to strip our constitutional rights to foreign citizens or foreign born U.S. citizens, need only read his quote above. Remember that giving money to a charity that is later found to have used the money to support some "terrorist" activity, even if you had no clue this was the case, now makes you "involved in terrorist activity" under US law. The terrorists will have won the game if our sleazy, morally-challenged and constitutionally incompetent politicians manage to use the fear of terrorism to strip our country of the freedoms so many brave citizens have fought and died for in many wars over two centuries. Our BEST defense against terrorism is our democracy and constitution, as well as a citizenry who will NOT be terrorized or cowed. Those who would destroy those best defenses, like the scoundrel Lieberman, are our worst enemies.

Posted by: rjciardo | May 4, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

miranda my $%#.survial of civilization is more important than criminal scum anytime

Posted by: pofinpa | May 4, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Beck, Lieberman, Levin, and others: what does citizenship have to do with Miranda rights? Applies to anyone charged with a crime in the U.S.

Posted by: famattjr | May 4, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

I don't think you understand the difference between Islamoids doing terrorism because they adhere to and obey the instructions of a foreign enemy - and domestic malcontents using terror but not committing de facto treason.

--

Have you read the definition of a "domestic terrorist" in the Patriot Act? You should really do that before you post statements that have no basis in fact. The distinction you make does not appear in the definition found in the Patriot Act.
sish y

Posted by: twm1 | May 4, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Glenn Beck is correct. There I said it. Now I will perform the ritual Glenfiddich soul cleansing.

Posted by: bob29 | May 4, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

"If we're going to start stripping people of US citizenship for terrorist acts, as Lieberman suggests, why only those who collaborate with "foreign" groups? Let's start with the guy who killed the abortion doctor and the guy who flew a plane into IRS headquarters. Or, again, is it only terrorism if the perpetrator isn't white?
Posted by: dnfree"

I don't think you understand the difference between Islamoids doing terrorism because they adhere to and obey the instructions of a foreign enemy - and domestic malcontents using terror but not committing de facto treason.

Also Leftists who fetishize US citizenship as some magical thing that gives you more lienency if you are caught working for the enemy don't know what they are talking about. You get the same "precious rights" as any enemy in war, AND you get summary or more drawn out legal justice as a traitor.

Also, Leftists tend to be ignorant that Naturalized Citizenship is CONDITIONAL citizenship. You get full rights provided you didn't lie in the process of becoming a citizen and you avoid committing a list of felonies that will cause you to get your citizenship stripped.

The Islamoid Faisal Shahzad and his somehow naturalized as well Paki wife appear excellent candidates to have their citizenship stripped. (If she knew what he was up to). He to a long stretch in jail or a military prison, her to a little jail then deported as an undesirable alien along withe the couples Islamoid spawn to whatever dungheap village she came from.

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | May 4, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

the weaker we seem the harder they will attack...
and so far, we are shown as being weak...
we seem eager to attack our own more than the real enemy...
if we are to have a civil war, then lets get it over with...

Posted by: DwightCollins | May 4, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

"Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), appearing on Fox News, suggested
changing the law to strip the citizenship -- and in turn the rights afforded by the Constitution -- from any American who becomes involved with terrorism."
*******************

According to the Bush-Cheney-Addington-Yoo doctrine, a terrorist is anyone the President says is a terrorist. I therefore suggest that Obama immediately strip Lieberman of citizenship. The kind of doctrine he is promoting is far more dangerous to the US than anything this jihadi dolt did.

Posted by: twm1 | May 4, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

The Republican way, Miranda rights should be based on skin color and ethnicity. Brown skin means no rights for you!

Posted by: magnifco1000 | May 4, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

It's a shame there is an argument over this. He's apparently caught red handed trying to kill Americans. He has no defense. The "Polically Correct" posture is ignorant. No one is after this man because of his religion or heritage. What he tried to do is wrong and he's one of many. Why can't we all agree on that?

Posted by: ProudAmerican1 | May 4, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Amazing that Glenn Beck is the only prominent Republican who has read the Constitution.

Posted by: simpleton1 | May 4, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

I understand when right wing nut cases think the constitution is conditional. It is typical thinking in fascist and other authoritarian societies that do not live by the rule of law.

It puzzles me that such fascism resides in the same brain who call the health care law unconstitutional, or Obama a socialist, or compare him to Hitler however.

Our constitution is the bedrock of our society, and we have long established that all American citizens are afforded the rights in it, whither they be President or Terrorist.

This day is an unusual one. I find myself in total agreement with Glenn Beck. It is the very first time this has happened.

Posted by: reussere | May 4, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Why is there even any discussion on this issue? Of course the suspect should have been read his Miranda rights and anyone (including John McCain and Joe Lieberman) who disputes this is unAmerican. If Lieberman and McCain do not like the Constitution of this country, perhaps they should leave and move to North Korea. If I sound disgusted it is because I am. I really do not know why the terrorists are blowing up this country. Really, they should save the time and the expense. With people like John McCain and Joe Lieberman, men just short of traitors, we are pretty much blowing up this country all by ourselves.

Posted by: nyrunner101 | May 4, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

"Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), appearing on Fox News, suggested changing the law to strip the citizenship -- and in turn the rights afforded by the Constitution -- from any American who becomes involved with terrorism."
*******************

Joe, you freakin' idiot. What you're proposing is not new: it was called the Alien and Sedition Acts about 200 years ago.

It's unconstitutional, unnecessary and idiotic. You are a foolish old man.

Posted by: abqcleve | May 4, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Absolutely No! As far as I am concerned, terrorists have no rights.

Although I know the Constitution may trump my position since he is supposed to be a citizen, he is not better than that traitor, Benedict Arnold, and should be banished to some deserted rock pile of an island circled by sharks.

Posted by: imaginemore | May 4, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

"Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), appearing on Fox News, suggested changing the law to strip the citizenship -- and in turn the rights afforded by the Constitution -- from any American who becomes involved with terrorism."
*******************

Joe, you freakin' idiot. What you're proposing is not new: it was called the Alien and Sedition Acts about 200 years ago.

It's unconstitutional, unnecessary and idiotic. You are a foolish old man.

Posted by: abqcleve | May 4, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

"Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), appearing on Fox News, suggested changing the law to strip the citizenship -- and in turn the rights afforded by the Constitution -- from any American who becomes involved with terrorism."
*******************

Joe, you freakin' idiot. What you're proposing is not new: it was called the Alien and Sedition Acts about 200 years ago.

It's unconstitutional, unnecessary and idiotic. You are a foolish old man.

Posted by: abqcleve | May 4, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

With apologies to our great President Abraham Lincoln (the original Republican elected official, ironically), I find it endlessly fascinating how most Republican elected officials today so easily fall into promoting the idea of applying the US Constitution to "some citizens all the time", or to "all citizens some of the time", but NEVER to "all citizens all the time".

When Glenn Beck says the only accurate and right thing about application of the US Constitution, while high profile Republican elected officials express at the very least hesitation and supreme confusion about application of the Constitution to US Citizens, you know said Republicans have lost their way and have forfeited their right to be a "representative" in our Congress.

I challenge these politicians to point out exactly where in the Constitution there is the provision for adhering to the document and it's subsequent laws ONLY WHEN CONVENIENT.

Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy, Timothy McVeigh all committed multiple murders, were all hunted, arrested, tried, convicted under American law. Why did they have more rights under American law than these politicians think this "Times Square Bomber", an American citizen (naturalized or not) should have?

Posted by: bmckenzie46 | May 4, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Time to arrest a few Republicans and Lieberman..Beck, Limbo, Ayers, Boehner,

You know the party of NO

Forget the Miranda Act

Claim they are Terrorists

Catch them RED HANDED

THEN
Have them prove
they were born
and
not hatched.

Lets see what happens if we do it to them..!!

ISA

Posted by: Issa1 | May 4, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Constitution shredding when it suites their political motives - Republicans should be fully ashamed (though I'd imagine that's not in their talking points).

I am in shock that for this one moment - I think Glenn Beck is actually saying something honest and reasonable. Start checking the pigs for feathers!

Posted by: wandering1day | May 4, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

While it was a mistake for the U.S. to pass Ted Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act that blithely permitted mass Muslim immigration and filled the U.S. with ticking time bombs like Hassan and Shahzad, when it comes to a mass murder terrorist suspect, Mirandizing him ever seems little short of insane whether he's a U.S. citizen or not. He's not accused of a crime, but a supercrime, one that takes an organization, and that changes the equation. Pres. Obama is only in his 2nd year, and has been lucky that the Xmas Bomber and Times Square Bomber muffed their explosives, else he'd have a lot more blood on his hands than Ft. Hood, so when is going to drop the Neville Chamberlain act of appeasing unappeasable supremacist Islam and get tough? Check out my free Obama Historyscoper to see how deep his rabbit hole goes at http://historyscoper.angelfire.com/obamascoe.html

Posted by: tlwinslow | May 4, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

This is fuss and bother over nothing. The Constitution does not require Miranda warnings before interrogation, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT that the government means to use the suspect's admissions against him as evidence. If there is plenty of evidence to convict him, the government does not need his admissions for that purpose, and can interrogate him until the cows come home, without advising him of anything. THAT is the law, and its been the law since Miranda was decided.

If the government believes that this man knows something very important to discover (and perhaps he does), and especially if there is plenty of evidence to convict him WITHOUT his admissions (as it seems there is), then there need be no huge, heated debate.

Posted by: Observer44 | May 4, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Right-wingers are working with the terrorists to destroy the Constitution. Keep them under surveillance and arrest them when they step over the line.

Posted by: bigbrother1 | May 4, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

If anything, this incident shows that the police are perfectly capable of apprehending and interrogating a terrorist using US criminal laws and respecting the Constitution. Why is scoring a few cheap political points more important to these Republicans than protecting our system of laws?

Posted by: missgrace | May 4, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

If we're going to start stripping people of US citizenship for terrorist acts, as Lieberman suggests, why only those who collaborate with "foreign" groups? Let's start with the guy who killed the abortion doctor and the guy who flew a plane into IRS headquarters. Or, again, is it only terrorism if the perpetrator isn't white?

Posted by: dnfree | May 4, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

I"ll go Lieberman one better. After you strip these alleged terrorist of their citizenship, ship them to Palestine. No doubt Hezbollah could put them to good use.

Posted by: slim2 | May 4, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

"Don't give this guy his Miranda rights until we find out what it's all about," McCain added.

Uh, am I the only one who's a little surprised that the Senator from Arizona who is still wondering what Miranda Rights are all about?

Posted by: mabkhar | May 4, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

The real issue is that the Republicans have nothing to say or contribute on this. They can't criticize the action taken. Its pretty amazing that Homeland Security, Police, FBI, etc. got this guy this quickly. The system came together and worked to capture this guy. Obama is killing known terrorists via predator drones and other means and Republicans can't criticize him for this. Congressman King comes up with the theory that they were out to get the guys who made cartoons. I think he is a bit looney.

Posted by: kozkobs | May 4, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Goes to show you how much Republican politicians are out of touch with the law, the constitution, and the people.

Posted by: Redbone | May 4, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

The comments by these lawmakers, as well as those of some of the commenters here, sicken me. We are a nation of laws, and our elected officials are sworn to uphold these laws. These are the same people who yell at the top of their lungs about "fascism", "socialism", and the overreach of the federal government, and yet they are advocating denying basic rights to American citizens on the accusation - not even the conviction, mind you - of a crime.

Our system of justice has proven time and again that it is capable of dealing with threats to our security, including terrorist threats, without stripping citizens of rights or citizenship. We must hold ourselves to the rule of law, or we will cease to be the country these people so fervently claim they want to protect.

Posted by: turnageb | May 4, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Goes to show you how out of touch Republican politicians are out of touch with the law, the constitution, and the people.

Posted by: Redbone | May 4, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

jgmann - "Placing a bomb in Times Square is a crime. *Criminal suspects get their Miranda Rights read to them.
The End."

No, it can be classified as enemy action if we as a people determine a bomber is an enemy combatant, not a civilian criminal.
Some acts are obvious as enemy action. Enemy bomber drops bomb in Times Square, war. AQ bombs 3 targets, Congress debates, declares it war. SGT Akbar bombs 3 officers in a tent in Kuwait - murder and adhering to the enemy. Military death sentence.

Faisal Shahzad now appears to be a military-trained enemy combatant who studied and drilled with military weaponry and attended a bomb school in N Waziristan.

BTW - Neither enemy combatants or criminals have any Miranda rights if an ongoing threat to public safety is claimed by authorities. The enemy, Islamoid or not, or the criminal may be questioned for a reasonable period of time before getting Miranda - if lives and health of the general public is subject to peril.


Posted by: ChrisFord1 | May 4, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

get information at the sacrifice of individual rights so as to protect the greater good or defend individual rights at all cost ...

Posted by: AmericanSpirit | May 4, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I actually agree with Glenn Beck for once. He summed up the issue perfectly. We can't defend our country and constitution if we don't abide by it ourselves.

Posted by: mdbest | May 4, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Exactly how big of an attack will it take those of you, so very concerned about terrorists rights, to change your minds? Or does it have to happen in your backyard, and personally affect you or your loved ones?

Posted by: thebink | May 4, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

jckdoors - "This guy is a U.S. citizen. Miranda applies, and you can't strip citizens of their status."

Sure you can, if they are naturalized citizens found guilty of lying on their application, lying while taking their oath of loyalty that citizenship is conditional on.
The may also be stripped of naturalized citizenship and deported after imprisonment for a variety of felonies.

We just stripped that guy Demanjuk of his citizenship and deported him after 60 years of living in the US and 55 years of naturalized citizen status because the guy lied on his application about being a guard at a Nazi camp.

===================
Miranda applies to non-citizens, too. But in war against enemy combatants it doesn't. Neither does the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th Amendments.

When I was in the Gulf War, we knew certain numbers of Iraqi-American "US Citizens" were in Iraq fighting on Saddams side. That had absolutely no effect on who was targeted. An Iraqi armored brigade thought to have a Ft Benning trained US citizen as XO was found, and cluster-bombed. Frankly, if someone had passed on targeting intel and said that one group of enemy had US citizens in it and the other formation didn't, I'd have passed on a recommendation to target the group with US people on the enemy side preferentially.

US citizenship is no protection when you take arms up against your country. It is a detriment to your continuing to breath if found or caught.

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | May 4, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

There is no question on whether these alleged terrorist should be Mirandaized. Alleged we are a country of laws, if we bend those laws to fit not giving protection due to someone's actions we will belittle those laws the same as this cretin now being held. Give him his time in court, the case against him is strong, when his is convicted, strip him of the citizenship he has betrayed and put him in the general community of the toughest prison in town. He has betrayed his chosen country, the laws of the religion he claims to fight for and the decentcy pf man. Even the death penalty would be too good for this cretin.

Posted by: kew_kew | May 4, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Placing a bomb in Times Square is a crime. *Criminal suspects get their Miranda Rights read to them.

The End.

* Aren't most of the politicians quoted in the article lawyers? I knew the answer to this Miranda debate just by watching TV. So glad I didn't waste all my money at an Ivy League Law school. ;-)

Lieberman: J.D. from Yale
Rubio: J.D. from U of Miami
King: J.D. from Notre Dame
McConnell: J.D. from U of Kentucky


Posted by: jgmann | May 4, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

PEOPLE WHO RETURN BACK FROM WAR-TORN COUNTRIES NEED TO BE CLOSELY MONITORED - ESPECIALLY WHERE US IS INVOLVED! ITS FOOLISH THOUGH TO TARGET A COMMUNITY OR A PARTICULAR COUNTRY FOR DECISIONS OF AN INDIVIDUAL. WE HAVE OVER 1.3M PAKIS LIVING PEACEFULLY IN THE US AND I HAVE 4 GOOD NEIGHBORS FOR OVER 20 YEARS FROM THAT COUNTRY. WELL, THESE ARE THE SPOILS OF A WAR!

Posted by: justcause2010 | May 4, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

"Don't give this guy his Miranda rights until we find out what it's all about"

Maybe we should deport McCain back to Panama where he was born, and we should not let him back in until he can show his birth certificate.

It is truly shameful when our elected officials don't believe in the documents that they swore to uphold.

Posted by: frantaylor | May 4, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

A Quick Constitutional Refresher;

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Shall we just throw out the Constitution and 'go' with 'whatever feels right'?

Posted by: deanx | May 4, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

A Quick Constitutional Refresher;

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Shall we just throw out the Constitution and 'go' with 'whatever feels right'?

Posted by: deanx | May 4, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

feeny - "From a practical standpoint, there is no evidence to suggest that the Miranda warning inhibits a skillful interrogator from obtaining information from a suspect."

Just how stupid do you think the American public is? It almost goes by rote: "OK, I won't say anything until lawyer arrives"
Lawyer arrives. "You didn't say a word to them, right? Good!" "I hereby inform law enforcement that this accused is no represented by counsel and will not speak until I fully understand the charges and discuss and deals or arrangements in my clients best interests. If you insist on questioning my new client, questioning will only be conducted with myself or a member of my law firm present to advise"

This is called "lawyering up".

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | May 4, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

This guy is a U.S. citizen. Miranda applies, and you can't strip citizens of their status. What simpletons pandering to the lowest denominator of our society. Let's strip Lieberman of his citizenship since he puts Israel ahead of the U.S. Idiot.

Posted by: jckdoors | May 4, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Why would any politician suggest this kind of action except to try to win votes from the Tea Bag crowd? It serves no useful purpose. One is never surprised to hear about Banana Republicans trashing the constitution and individual rights, for all their pompous posturing they treat the constitution like bathroom tissue. McCain is sinking and will grab at any straw to get the Bagger vote. As for Lieberman, I hope he goes down, too.

Posted by: gposner | May 4, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

I am utterly amazed that Jewish Sen. Liebermann, knowing the history of how Jews have been treated in history - from Nebuchadnezzar to Stalin - would actually state that citizens should "be deprived automatically of their citizenship...when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist act." Not convicted mind you, but only charged.

Posted by: jfp585 | May 4, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

This argument is nothing short of idiotic, but it's what I've come to expect from Republicans. It boils down to the assumption that everyone is a terrorist until proven otherwise. That's why we have the insanity when we travel by air. That's why the Bushies thought is was okay to conduct domestic warrantless wiretaps. Next Lieberman and his Republican buddies are probably going to want to strip everyone of their American citizenship so that those awkward rights never get in the way of one of their lynchings. And they completely overlook the evidence that if this bombing and the Christmas Day plot really were terrorist acts, the terrorists are getting truly stupid.

Posted by: jlhare1 | May 4, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

I agree with ChrisFord.

Shahzad clearly violated the oath of allegiance to the US he made when he became a citizen:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God." 8 C.F.R. § 337.1 Oath of allegiance.

(I would also like to revoke the citizenships of all those who swore to foresake allegiance to their country of origin and don't. For example, Salma Hayek and Thalia Sodi.)

Posted by: pmendez | May 4, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

First of all, there is no such thing as a Miranda right. The Miranda decision requires law enforcement officers to advise a citizen in custody of his constitutional rights under the 5th (right against self incrimination) and 6th Amendments (right to counsel). Law enforcement can't give or take these rights away from any U.S. citizen. That's why we call them rights. It’s ridiculous for members of congress to suggest that law enforcement personnel should be required to decide that certain US citizens are not entitled to exercise their rights under the constitution. What's worse, they are urging law enformcement to ignore the law.

The agents conducting this investigation followed the law, which is what they take an oath to uphold. Most importantly, by properly advising this suspect per Miranda, these officers kept open all available procedural options to bring the parties responsible to justice.

From a practical standpoint, there is no evidence to suggest that the Miranda warning inhibits a skillful interrogator from obtaining information from a suspect. To the contrary, custodial confessions increased after Miranda was decided. With respect to our ability to investigate potential acts of terror, this is much ado about nothing. I no of no instance where law enforcement has failed to obtaine actionable intelligence from terror suspects in post Miranda interrogations. At worst, it’s a craven political game that could erode the Constitutional rights of all Americans.

Posted by: feeney | May 4, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

We can obviously make anything law...been witnessing the freakish Democratic congress? Make it a law that terrorism results in revoked citizenship - of course.

Posted by: joesmithdefend | May 4, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Now that it is confirmed the terrorist is a registered DEMOCRAT in Connecticut, can da Post report how much he donated to Obama or other democrats?

Posted by: goosefrabba | May 4, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

This guy Shahzad was a Pakistani who became a naturalized citizen less than a year ago. If he violated his oath to support the United States of America and it's Constitution, his citizenship can be stripped. If he was in fact a terrorist with ties to a terror group WHEN he took his oath, if he lied about things on his application - then his citizenship was obtained under false pretenses and is illegitimate. Meaning administratively, he can be ruled a non-US citizen.
(Kind of like the Nazis that lied about their past and their affiliations on their US citizenship apps and were stripped of it, jailed, or deported).
--------------------
His wife is in similar circumstances. Pakistani, speaks little English, yet got US citizenship recently. If she knew of her husband's terror activities, she is also an enemy of America and can be deported to whatever dung-walled village she came in Pakistan -along with the couple's two Islamoid spawn.

Taking US citizenship only makes the Islamoid Faisal a traitor as well as a terrorist.
While even non citizens have what liberals and progressive jews call "precious rights", non-citizenship makes it easier to deal with the Enemy Within.

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | May 4, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

This issue reveals RepubliKKKans as CINOs (citizens in name only).
There are a number of beliefs that Americns have chosen to live by, and one is that ALL men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.
I sure get tired of RepubliKKKans having to be retrained after every coffee break.
Strangely enough Glenn Beck, a person I never thought would utter anything I could agree with, has.
Just man up, RepubliKKKans, for a Change.

Posted by: bgreen2224 | May 4, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

iowegian wrote>>>pretty damn scary with Glenn Beck makes more sense than members of Congress like McCain and King, who after all took an oath to defend the Constitution

True - but maybe Beck is trying a little sanity for a change since his rating has fallen 30% this year.

Posted by: angie12106 | May 4, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

iowegian wrote>>>pretty damn scary with Glenn Beck makes more sense than members of Congress like McCain and King, who after all took an oath to defend the Constitution

True - but maybe Beck is trying a little sanity for a change since his rating has fallen 30% this year.

Posted by: angie12106 | May 4, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

iowegian wrote>>>pretty damn scary with Glenn Beck makes more sense than members of Congress like McCain and King, who after all took an oath to defend the Constitution

True - but maybe Beck is trying a little sanity for a change since his rating has fallen 30% this year.

Posted by: angie12106 | May 4, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Turtle face McConnell has lost all credibility. He is nothing but a posturing old fool who needs to be castrated and led out to pasture. What a moron.

Posted by: swatkins1 | May 4, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

"Don't give this guy his Miranda rights until we find out what it's all about," McCain added.

John McCain has proven himself to be an idiot. In the United States of America, citizens HAVE their constitutional rights. No one has to GIVE them their constitutional rights. The murderous scumbag piece of garbage terrorist is an American citizen. He HAS his Miranda rights. Period.

Maybe McCain should change his political campaign slogan to, "Whatever you want to hear, I'll say it."

Posted by: Len_RI1 | May 4, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

The terrorist is a registered DEMOCRAT and should be beaten as such.

Posted by: goosefrabba
===================================

Another Republican Nazi profounding his racism..

ISA

Posted by: Issa1 | May 4, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Common Sense makes no sense to anyone anymore.

We have a weird sense of insecurity, the government officials in charge are telling our enemies what kind of fire power we have.

We continue to allow TERRORISTS to come across our OPEN BORDERS.

We send money through foreign aid while our own country has to borrow to pay it's bills?

What is wrong with this picture?

America where are you now, don't you care about your own son's and daughters?
Won't get fooled again in 2010!

Posted by: TDickson1 | May 4, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

It's pretty damn scary with Glenn Beck makes more sense than members of Congress like McCain and King, who after all took an oath to defend the Constitution.

Posted by: iowegian | May 4, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

The terrorist is a registered DEMOCRAT and should be beaten as such.

Posted by: goosefrabba | May 4, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

What kind of American even discusses arresting and locking up an American citizen without reading him (her)his rights (Miranda) or charging them with a crime (habeas corpus)? I don't care what he or she does, these are Constitutional rights the government can not take away from you.

Don't these right wing nut cases get it?? If the government can do it to them, they can do it to you!

Posted by: thebobbob | May 4, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

In this case the guy is an American citizen so there is no debate, he is covered by the constitution whether those torturing Republican's like it or not.

He has rights or he will go free... That is the law.

Posted by: soapm | May 4, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company