McCain says not to read NYC terrorist his Miranda Rights

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."

VIDEO INCLUDED

Mr. McCain does not want a legal US citizen to be read his Miranda rights which are guaranteed in the US Constitution. I think Beck hit the nail on the head with this one.

These Republicans who use to be known for their deep respect and strict following of the constitution now just want to throw away CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS for their petty little political beliefs. These creeps have gone nuts and need to be put in their place!

www.huffingtonpost.com...

[edit on 5/4/10 by Misoir]

I know McCain is respected by many for his POW/veteran status, but I have never had much respect for the man's politics or opinions.

This is just more of the same as far as I'm concerned. The idea of not treating an American citizen as a citizen is so repugnant to me that I can't possibly use the kind of words that would justly explain how repulsed I am.

Screw you John McCain. You are the worst kind of Republican there is, a fraud and a Big Government shill.

Terrorism has created so many non-crimes that it borders on ridiculous, and McCain isn't helping.

Peace
KJ

Well, Beck is 100 percent right.

I hate the the scumbag who tried to kill innocent people with a bomb...but he was an american citizen who has the rights of all of us...including Miranda rights.

I know people have the issue of giving non citizens miranda rights...but this guy was a US citizen...that whole argument is void.

The video in the link is quite good.

I heard this on CNN today from Rick Sanchez. Rick also mentioned a Bill that was trying to be passed that totally shocked me. This Bill would automatically strip you of your American Citizenship on the spot if you are charged with a Terrorist Act, before you are found guilty or not guilty.

Did anyone else hear this anywhere else? Does anyone know about this bill or who is trying to get it passed? I'll do some research myself. If I find it, I'll post the link...

On topic: Since he was a Legal Citizen, he should have every and all rights afforded to him by our Constitution, PERIOD. John McCain probably only sees the Constitution when he wipes his feet on it. Unbelievable!!!

EDIT TO ADD: I found it. It is a Bill to strip you of your rights if you are found to be involved in a foreign terrorist organization as defined by the Dept of State. It doesn't say what their definition is. Here is the link and Joe Lieberman wants it. It isn't as bad as I thought I heard it but it could still have serious implications.

www.politico.com...



[edit on 4-5-2010 by kennylee]

Grandpa McNuts needs to retire already. He is just plain loco.

As much as I don't care for his primary opponent J.D. Hayworth, I would love to see him send the old man home.

As much as what the suspect is accused of, he is a citizen of the country, and is therefor entitled to the same rights under the laws of the country as is all of our rights. We do not have the right to suspend those rights for anyone who is a citizen of the country and he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

It makes me wonder.

As bad as Obama is, how bad could it have been if McCain won?

I know this sounds crazy,but McCain is right. Once a suspect is given his Miranda rights,he has access to an attorney,and can clam up. God forbid that the terrorist has 10 more trucks lined up in other cities. Even Obama agrees.


OBAMA: Well, there is no doubt that we have not done a particularly effective job in sorting rough who are truly dangerous individuals that we've got to make sure are not a threat to us, who are folks that we just swept up. The whole premise of Guantanamo promoted by Vice President Cheney was that, somehow, the American system of justice was not up to the task of dealing with these terrorists. I fundamentally disagree with that. Now, do these folks deserve miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not.


Proof

The terrorist is one of our terrorists. He's an American and he has rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Those same rights protect ALL Americans, you can not pick and choose who is or is not a protected class.

Maverick McCain needs to retire to glue factory. His political career will be over with the next primary in a couple of months.

Beck may be a complete looney on most topics but on this I do agree with him. If we deny rights to one they must be denied to all. No one wants to see that.

To reiterate on what most have said that this dude is (not was, someone's pending legal status doesn't change regardless of the case before the courts) an American citizen.

Let us leave the final judgment to the 12 lucky souls who get to decide his fate. Until then what we know for know is whatever us or the MSM says is hearsay as the Government on any case will only allow minute and dumb info known while holding back the real information as for any lawyer worth his weight will monitor all tv shows for coverage about their case as whatever is said on tv may be used against the State.

I just don't know who's the Lead Department in this case. That means the world. Even though New York State and The United States Federal Government both have The Death Penalty on the books as law.

Life imprisonment may be the least he's looking at as even though the device was rigged, set and activated. Even though technically it did not go off, property damage and murder charges cannot be activated as the device failed to detonate thus preventing loss of life or destruction to property.

Terror, Unauthourized manaufacturing of explosives, a ton of parking tickets, intent charges out the ying yang is why he'll probaly get life but completely avoid the needle altogether.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]

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.

The protection of the American people as a whole should be considered, especially when a purported terrorist act is being investigated. This individual is a foreign born, naturalized citizen who was on a no-fly list and known to have recently returned from North Western Pakistan, and bought tickets at the last minute using cash, that should raise some red flags.

This administration needs a real policy for handleing these kinds of threats. Luck is not a policy.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by sharkman]

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.

This is true. Intelligence is important but if you could no longer get any information out of someone after they have been read their rights, we'd have a much worse crime problem. That's what terrorism is, a crime. This act of war stuff gets tiring.

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.

This is always a risk regardless of the circumstances. We do, believe it or not, have professional agents that can do a really good job, and that is exactly their job IS. To catch bad guys.

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.

I think you meant criminal trial. Additionally, they can question him before reading him his rights, however they can not use that evidence in court and they run the risk of prosecution issues or mistrial.

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.

You act as if one does not have the natural rights explained in the Constitution until someone tells them to you. This is incorrect. We always have the right to remain silent as anything we say that incriminates ourselves can be used against us.

This is nothing new and should be treated as a criminal issue unless Congress wants to declare war. Congress will NOT declare war because that requires specific parameters and specific goals (meaning not broad sprawling ones).

Until they do it is the Constitution all day every day and no military tribunals.

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.

We are not able to detain a non-criminal for very long before charges must be brought. It varies from state to state, but detaining "non-criminals" is a dangerous idea.

Long story short, I'll leave you with some words you should consider.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. ~ Thomas Jefferson

The administration is starting to get it. We are in a state of war, or at the least in a "State of Emergency" after 9-11. I don't believe that status has changed from a federal stand point. Whether we are willing participants or not, our enemies decided they were at war with us and all that we represent. Many of them have declared very publicly that they are at war with us and we must not dismiss their statements lightly, even if they are coming from non-state sponsered sources or from areas of the world that seem lawless to us.

Check the Adminstrations latest stance on "limited flexibility" on the miranda rights of suspects. I'm not going to argue that citizens don't warrarant the protections guaranteed in the Constitution, they do, but there are situations and circumstances that may cause us to rethink our positions when faced with"assymetrical" threats. It is not too far out of bounds to stretch the limits when protecting the citizenry as a whole.

McCain needs to shut the f**k up and retire. Thank u
for ur service, but it is no longer required.

He has either been brainwashed or bought.

It would appear that his time in a Laos
POW prison has not changed his mind
about rights of prisoners. If he hadn't
received compassion from the enemy
he would not be here today. Yet he
wants to take that away from somebody
else that hasn't even been tried in a
court of law. McCain has become a
sick-minded Barbarian.
Retire McCain, u will be ousted
in the next election. Most incumbents will.
Welcome to civilian life where you may become
a victim of ur own agendas.

reply to post by boondock-saint


I don't think McCain was brainwashed or bought. I think he is losing his nerve, his bearing, his patience, and his length of time left to accomplish the things he wants to be a part of his legacy. I think he had an agenda that he thought would help the country. And now, will not accept the fact that the things he felt important and wanted to accomplish cannot be accomlished as they are no longer feasable or even competent.