Republicans Use Faisal Shahzad Arrest To Renew Miranda Rights Debate

With suspected terrorist Faisal Shahzad in custody, the debate over what rights should be given to the Pakistani-American man now facing charges in connection with the attempted Times Square car bombing is already raging.

The day after the arrest of the 30-year-old Shahzad at John F. Kennedy airport in New York on Monday evening, various Republican lawmakers and commentators took to print and the airwaves to whack away at the Obama administration over the issue of whether Shahzad should have been read his Miranda rights.

Last year lawmakers and pundits from all corners of politics weighed in loudly and aggressively about the eventual decision to Mirandize Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man behind the failed Christmas Day airline bombing plot.

The situation is different this time, however, since Shahzad is a naturalized American citizen.

Key GOP lawmakers argued on Tuesday that law enforcement officials should not have read Shahzad his Miranda rights in the interest of maximizing the amount of intelligence that can be received through interrogation. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), for example, called the reading of the rights a "serious mistake."

Here's a sampling of the GOP responses:

1 of 9

Senators Cornyn And Kyl Credit 'Luck' For Bomber's Cooperation, Question Mirandization

1 of 10

First Slide

Previous Slide

@

In a steady stream of indictments, top-ranking officials in the GOP said it didn't matter that the Obama Department of Justice was getting information from Faisal Shahzad, the now-detained the Pakistani-born American. The fact that the administration chose to read Miranda rights to the suspect shows a national security policy steeped in naivety and potentially dangerous. "That is a stroke of good luck," Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said of the news that Shahzad was cooperating even after getting his Miranda rights read to him. "What if he had not waived them and just quit talking, said 'I want my lawyer'?" "Maybe we got lucky and [Shahzad] said I will go ahead and talk to you anyway," said Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). "But you didn't know that when you read [him] the rights. So I stand by what I said -- it is better in these kinds of cases to get the intelligence first and then, if you decide you want to proceed with an Article 3 prosecution, then read the Miranda rights." --SAM STEIN 5/4/10

Politicians React To IRS Scandal

Obama's Fist Bumps

Most Iconic Photos Of Obama's First Term

Controversial school-related documents from around the country

People More Evolved Than Obama On Pot

Attack On U.S. Compound In Benghazi

In a steady stream of indictments, top-ranking officials in the GOP said it didn't matter that the Obama Department of Justice was getting information from Faisal Shahzad, the now-detained the Pakistani-born American. The fact that the administration chose to read Miranda rights to the suspect shows a national security policy steeped in naivety and potentially dangerous.

"That is a stroke of good luck," Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said of the news that Shahzad was cooperating even after getting his Miranda rights read to him. "What if he had not waived them and just quit talking, said 'I want my lawyer'?"

"Maybe we got lucky and [Shahzad] said I will go ahead and talk to you anyway," said Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). "But you didn't know that when you read [him] the rights. So I stand by what I said -- it is better in these kinds of cases to get the intelligence first and then, if you decide you want to proceed with an Article 3 prosecution, then read the Miranda rights."

--SAM STEIN

5/4/10

comments(2238)

Total comments: 2238 | Post a Comment

1 of 10

This Comment

Rank #2  |  Average: 4

Tame Shocking

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10

Top Comments

loading...

Top Comments

UserName

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Top User Slides

← Prev|Next →

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Users who voted on this slide

← Prev|Next →

loading...

Comments

[NotStarvingArtist]

08:35 PM on 05/06/2010

"what rights should be given to the Pakistani-American man"

It is frightening to think that our senators and congressmen do not even know that American "rights" are not supposed to be given or taken away on a case-by-case basis. Even ex-cons suspected of the most heinous crimes are read their Miranda rights, because first of all they have not been convicted of the crime they are currently being accused of (innocent until proven guilty is a basic tenet of our legal system), and secondly because in America "all men are created equal" and are supposed to be treated equally under our laws. If you single out people accused (not convicted) of terrorism and strip them of their American rights, you are creating a class of citizens who are not equal under our laws. They are presumed guilty without benefit of a trial. That is a very slippery slope. Our elected leaders should know this, and if they don't, they should be fired for not having the basic skills required to perform their jobs.

[booker52]

11:21 AM on 05/06/2010

What gets me about this argument is that most people, even those who aren't lawyers know what their rights are. So for our elected officals to even debate this shows how dumb this debate is. To those GOP folks pandering to the extreme right, shut the h e l l up.

[Jevad]

10:12 AM on 05/06/2010

Ironic... these idiots argue that they want the government to pick and choose which rights and parts of the constitution that the govt should choose to apply to people (citizen or not) when it comes to prosecuting (and even torturing) suspected criminals (again, citizen or not).

But they argue just the opposite when it comes to keeping guns and bomb material out of the hands of actual suspected terrorist. God forbid they should put a hold on someone from buying firearms and fertilizer who actually MAY BE a terrorist- for fear that someone may have to be investigated a little further before they get a gun.

[ArborialBiped]

10:34 AM on 05/17/2010

Yep, ironic. But there's method to their madness.

The consistent theme that unites these otherwise contradictory stances is the basic psychology of the right-wing mind: It's all about CONTROL -- their fears that they're not in control of everything, their rage at that sense of vulnerability, and their willingness to use coercion and violence to remove that feeling of vulnerability. "Own it, lock it up or kill it".

[LillyKelder]

09:41 AM on 05/06/2010

This isn't new. The republicans use terrorism for everything; even elections.

[Mafdet]

09:32 AM on 05/06/2010

Wasn't it Rehnquist who wrote the majority opinion upholding Miranda when the Supreme Court took up the challenge to it in 2000?

Can we move on now?

[mbazid]

06:52 AM on 05/06/2010

Why weren't these guy's upset about the Michigan Militia domestic terrorists. They were read their rights and they were accused of conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government. I read this morning that they could all be released pending trial.
Maybe because the color of their skin has something to do with it.

[Cacaoatl]

03:42 AM on 05/06/2010

The lawmakers mentioned in this piece don't understand our legal history or our laws and shouldn't have anything to do with making them. People under arrest have their Miranda Rights whether the arresting officer gives the Miranda Warning or not. The Miranda Warning exists only to remind people what their rights are it doesn't actually grant the rights otherwise they would just be privileges not rights.

[avocats]

01:48 AM on 05/06/2010

Will someone please explain to me why telling someone "You have the right to remain silent . . . " is supposed to change a terror suspect's mind about cooperating with the cops? Seriously . . . a terrorist is going to hear that and say. "oh well, I WAS going to tell you everything, but now . . . I won't talk"?

[LeftRight]

01:11 PM on 05/06/2010

That's not the point, the point is that if you DON'T tell them that and they DO tell you something, you CANNOT use it in court against them!

[bamaboyinjax]

12:24 AM on 05/06/2010

This is my worry...my "Animal Farm" scenario... they stop Mirandizing because they are terrorists just how long will it take until they decide that Miranda is just usless in our system of Justice, period. VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE AHEAD!!!

[tom90069]

11:42 PM on 05/05/2010

how awesome
we get this guy, and many others, so quickly
arrested, prosecuted and brought to justice by our judicial department
our awkward legislative process that create our laws
we're a national built on a constitution and law
and we still debate about the process
this is democracy

[ZombyWoof]

11:00 PM on 05/05/2010

My post got messed up.
For world prison population rankings as of 2007:

http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/prison_incarceration_rates_of_countries_2007.html

[ZombyWoof]

10:55 PM on 05/05/2010

If there is one thing the US excels at it's locking people up.

Prison Prisoners Per
Rank Country/Region Population 100,000 People

1 United States 2,186,230 738
2 Russia 869,814 611
3 St Kitts and Nevis 214 547
4 Turkmenistan 22,000 489
5 Cuba 55,000 487
6 Belize 1,359 487
7 Bahamas 1,500 462
8 Belarus 41,583 426
9 Dominica 289 419
10 Barbados 997 367
11 Panama 11,649 364
12 Ukraine 165,716 356
13 Suriname 1,600 356
14 Singapore 15,038 350
15 Botswana 6,259 348
16 Maldives 1,125 343
17 Kazakhstan 49,292 340
18 South Africa 157,402 335
19 Estonia 4,463 333
20 St. Vincent/Grenadines 367 312
87 China 1,548,498 118

[madatnewsmedia]

07:21 AM on 05/06/2010

And a large number of those prisoners in US prisons are young, african american boys and men. And that's exactly what white america want.

[ZombyWoof]

07:44 AM on 05/06/2010

Too true, unfortunately and while I'm sure this is exactly what some or perhaps many white Americans want I would be carefull about characterizing that as the sentiment of all white Americans.

[Hoosierbrad]

12:20 PM on 05/06/2010

And most cons think the prison population should be double what it is. I wonder if they would authorize a tax increase to pay for that?

[LeftRight]

01:12 PM on 05/06/2010

Only if all the money was going straight into private prison coffers!

[tacevad]

10:49 PM on 05/05/2010

the comments that come from so many of these old white guys in government(disclaimer: I am an old white guy but not in government) brings me to conclude that what we really could use in this country is a mandatory retirement age for elected offices

[NotStarvingArtist]

08:56 PM on 05/06/2010

Hear, hear! And failing that, there should be term limits. That would solve a lot of the corruption that comes with constant fund-raising for the next election. They might actually do some work while they are in office if they weren't spending the majority of their time planning for the next election.

[hagagaga]

09:22 PM on 05/05/2010

Republicans hate the Constitution.

[LiberalDemIda]

12:31 AM on 05/06/2010

Yep. And they prove it again and again and again... yet yell and shout at liberals and progressives that *we're* the ones who don't believe in the Constitution. They've got some twisted way of thinking.

[sgraham59]

10:32 AM on 05/06/2010

All the while Crying Patriotism

[serena1313]

08:43 PM on 05/05/2010

In 1966 the Miranda law was put in place. It has nothing to with citizenship nor national security, but rather it is a guarantee the evidence won't be thrown-out in a court of law.

General Paul Eaton, best known for training the Iraqi troops during the Bush years, had scathing criticism of McCain and King for suggesting the Obama administration refrain from mirandizing Faisal Shahzad because they are putting American lives at risk. Eaton also noted that Shahzad will not be tried in a military tribunal, he will be tried in a civilian court. He said,

"It is not a military venue. He [Shahzad] is an American citizen. The military has no jurisdiction."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk3-OauUgrM

Joe Lieberman, John McCain and other Republicans on Capitol Hill need to be reminded they took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.

Shame on them.

[ClarkOHrepub]

09:03 PM on 05/05/2010

Not buying your perceptions that McCain et al had any intentions of denying anyone their rights. It is common for law enforcement to hold off Mirandizing a person of interest or suspect until they have evidence to actually arrest and charge him. And this is not my take...check out http://www.mirandawarning.org/pre-arrestquestioning.html if you like.

[LeftRight]

09:17 PM on 05/05/2010

No, if they are being arrested for suspicion of committing a crime, then they MUST Mirandize them before any other actions can be taken by the police!!

[serena1313]

09:19 PM on 05/05/2010

" "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," Lieberman, who helms the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said on Fox News.

"“If you’ve joined an enemy of the United States in attacking the United States and trying to kill Americans, I think you should sacrifice your rights of citizenship,” Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, told reporters Tuesday."