More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
David Danzig

David Danzig

Posted: January 6, 2010 05:33 PM

What Do We Lose by Mirandizing Nigerian Who Sought to Blow Up Plane on Christmas Day?

What's Your Reaction:

An army of political pundits is crying foul over the transfer of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to the federal criminal court system.

Transfer to the federal courts is a sure-fire way of "not making terrorists talk," The Wall Street Journal thundered today in an editorial, echoing similar sentiments expressed by Pat Buchanan, Tom Ridge, and The Weekly Standard recently. The editorial goes on to urge the administration not to charge future terrorists in the federal court system because it provides them with "a lawyer and all the legal protections against cooperating with U.S. interrogators."

The editors at the Journal seem to believe that once the dreaded "L" word is invoked, there is nothing U.S. interrogators can do but throw up their hands and deliver any would-be terrorist to his counsel of choice. This is a stunning misunderstanding of the way the criminal justice system operates.

U.S. interrogators have a wide array of "approaches" they can use to try to induce someone like Abdulmutallab to talk, whether he is being held at Guantanamo or in Miami. They can't beat him up. (We have been down that road.) But they can question him without first Mirandizing him ("you have the right to remain silent" etc.) and they don't have to put him in touch with an attorney immediately.

"Once someone is in custody, Miranda is only required if you want to introduce results of the interrogation into evidence at trial," explained my colleague Gabor Rona, an expert on prosecuting terrorists in federal courts. "In this case, they don't need his confession - there's more than enough other evidence."

So for intelligence purposes, interrogators can question Abdulmutallab at length no matter where his case is ultimately tried. The results of those interrogations can be used to catch other bad guys and stop other plots from unfolding; what is learned from this questioning, in most cases, can not be introduced in court as evidence.

Fear not, readers of the Wall Street Journal editorial page! We are no less safe because of the decision to try Abdulmutallab in federal court.

David Danzig is the Deputy Program Director at Human Rights First.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 7
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
05:33 PM on 01/07/2010
To give the same rights as US citizens to anyone that enters our country only cheapens US citizenship.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:23 PM on 01/08/2010
i disagree. It limits our government inside its borders, which is exactly what the constitution was intended to do.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:44 PM on 01/07/2010
i completely agree. I see no problem with this guy in the criminal justice system. i cant say the same about KSM. But if you are caught in the US, you should have constitutional rights.
03:15 AM on 01/08/2010
Wrong. You should not receive US constitutional rights unless you're a US citizen.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:23 PM on 01/08/2010
there is plenty of case law that illegal immigrants in the US have constitutional protection. State of Arizona v Miranda is one that comes to mind.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
proudliberal4truth
old southern white liberal - a true endagered spec
07:16 PM on 01/06/2010
It's amazing how many people shout about freedom, but don't want to actually see it in practice unless it's convenient to their agenda.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kamen Gullberg
06:27 PM on 01/06/2010
Well put. Now if everyone out there could understand that.