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.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told PJ Media that the Obama administration made a “terrible mistake” by treating Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as a “normal criminal” instead of a “terrorist,” calling the decision “irresponsible.”
“I think somebody who attempts to kill a lot of Americans and who clearly was influenced by an outside ideology should be treated as an enemy combatant. I have no doubt about that at all,” Gingrich told PJ Media on the red carpet of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
“I think it’s a huge mistake to read Miranda rights to a terrorist because in fact as he did, they just shut up and you want them to be able to be debriefed to find out who’s supporting them, who else is out there organizing, where did their money come from. It’s a terrible, terrible mistake to treat them as though they were a normal criminal when they’re a terrorist.”
Such is the Underwear Bomber case. I can do nothing but laugh at the TSA's new policy of "If you see something say something." That is exactly what I did, and not only did the U.S. Government not want to hear what I had to say, but it actively lied about it, attempted to get me to change my story, and hid, by withholding (secret government) evidence or putting a protective order on the evidence and nearly everything that would support my eyewitness account.
Where are we now? We now have The Underwear Bomber (Umar) representing himself with the help of standby attorney Chambers. Attorney Chambers has indicated to me that if he were Umar's attorney, that the defense would be entrapment and that I would be a key witness. Of course, such a defense would expose the U.S. Government's involvement in the plot. It is much too convenient to have Umar represent himself and be in charge of what the defense will be, what evidence is presented, what witnesses are called and what questions each witness is asked. A trial with Umar representing himself will leave the relevant facts of this case unknown for generations. I can't help but think that Umar fired his attorneys for a reason other than he is a crazy terrorist. It is much too convenient that the entity that staged the event, also controls the evidence, what information is leaked to the media, who the prosecutors are, and the prison where Umar has sbeen staying at for the last 21 months. Let's not overlook the fact that the U.S. Government has admitted to waterboarding and torturing terrorists. Do you see the pieces of the puzzle forming a clear picture yet?
There is also a "public safety" exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before questioning: for example, if the defendant is in possession of information regarding the location of an unattended gun or there are other similar exigent circumstances which require protection of the public, the defendant may be questioned without warning and his responses, though incriminating, will be admissible in evidence (see New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984)). In 2009 the California Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Richard Allen Davis, finding that the public safety exception applied despite the fact that 64 days had passed from the disappearance of the girl later found to be murdered.
Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
On one hand he is technically correct by definition in that an attack on Americans was motivated by an Outside influence. On the other hand, since he was read his rights, he now has "Bargaining Power". Which fundamentally means the Difference between a Life Sentence and a Death Sentence.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
Why would we need to give him Miranda rights if they didn't plan on using anything he told them in the criminal trial against him?