It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Notorious for jumping into the political fray in the wake of attempted or successful terrorist acts, King was quickly joined in the ring by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who called the idea of reading Miranda rights a "serious mistake."
"There's probably about 350 different charges he's guilty of -- attempted acts of terror against the United States, attempted murder," McCain said during an appearance on "Imus in the Morning". "I'm sure there's a significant number to warrant the death penalty."
That both McCain and King would so quickly condemn the idea of reading Miranda rights is a reflection of just how far the Republican Party has moved away from a basic element of law enforcement (used often by, among others, the Bush administration's Department of Justice). The suspect, after all, is an American citizen. And in an unexpected moment of dissension, the two lawmakers found themselves on the opposite end of the argument from no less a conservative voice than Beck.
"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."
Originally posted by sharkman
The arguement that is made in support of not Mirandizing him right off is twofold, first that his intelligence information is fresh at the begining of the questioning process and the intelligence has a shelf life.
Meaning that anyone associated with him gets wind of his arrest then they go to ground and we may loose the ability to catch them.
Secondly, when we Mirandize a suspect they do so with the intent of using anything he may give up as evidence in a civil trial.
The suspect usually shuts up at that point and lawyers up. This in effect makes any of his information useless in following up on catching other bad actors. Also there is the possibility that we could decide not to go with a civil prosecution and process the case in a military commission. But this is very unlikely because the current administration does not view our current situation on a war footing and they pursue these types of cases in civil court and try it as criminal matter. A big mistake in my opinion, but I don't make policy and no one is asking me.
The way we approach the matter depends on ideology and legal philosophy. My take is that we should not treat the presumed perpetrator as a criminal until after the interrogation process provides actionable intelligence if any can be had, then decide how to treat the guy and if you decide to prosecute him as a criminal Mirandize the hell out of him.