A Miranda Rights controversy revolving around whether suspected terrorists should be read their rights has erupted months after it originated with the Christmas Day bomber. Soon after Faisal Shahzad was arrested Tuesday in the Times Square bomb investigation, bloggers, politicians and pundits raised a chatter about whether police force officials should have read Shahzad his rights. Since he is a naturalized American citizen from Pakistan, Faisal Shahzad should have his Miranda rights read to him.
The Christmas day bomber and Miranda rights
Last year the Miranda rights controversy erupted when Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was read his Miranda rights after the arrest. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight on its approach to Detroit from Amsterdam but succeeded only in lighting his pants on fire like a cheap pay day loan. Republican lawmakers, as outlined by sfgate.com, were mad at the administration for not consulting the heads of U.S. intelligence agencies before FBI agents decided to read the 23-year-old Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights. They say valuable intelligence was lost as a result of decision.
Miranda rights and also the Times Square bomber
When Faisal Shahzad ended up getting arrested in connection with the Time Square bomb on Tuesday, MSNBC reported that Republican politicians used the occasion to reignite the Miranda rights controversy. In a speech on the Senate floor, Republican Leader Mitch McConnell stated “Hopefully, the appropriate officials are using this possibility to exploit as much intelligence as he might have about his overseas connections and any plots against Americans either here or abroad.”
Miranda rights controversy debate
Arguments are all over the media Tuesday for the Miranda rights controversy which is producing strange bedfellows on both sides. On the Caucus Blog at the New York Times, Maria Newman reports that John McCain said on the “Imus in the Morning” program that it would be a “serious mistake’’ to let Mr. Shahzad know, under the 1966 decision in Miranda v. Arizona, that he had a right to an attorney before answering any questions, “at least until we find out as much details we have.”
Miranda rights controversy absurdities
Commenting about the Miranda rights controversy, Glen Beck said “This is no time to shred the constitution,” on Fox News. Amanda Terkel at Think Progress showed all of her disbelief on Beck’s comments, writing: Believe it or not, Fox News analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano and host Glenn Beck are condemning the type of fearmongering that King and McCain are doing. Adam Serwer at Tapped on americanprospect.com also had something to say about these comments from Senator Joe Lieberman:
I think it’s time for us to check out 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.
Serwer suggests that Lieberman’s comments are “really absurd.” If Lieberman listened to himself, he would realize that he advocates stripping individuals of American citizenship based on mere suspicion of a crime, “There’s no benefit to denying Shahzad due process, Serwer said, “but doing so might create significant difficulties down the road. So put away the pitchforks already.”
Article Resources
sfgate.com
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-14/news/17875926_1_miranda-rights-suspects-member-of-al-qaeda
Caucus Blog at the New York Times
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/blogtalk-miranda-rights-for-terrorists/
