Gingrich: ‘Terrible, Terrible Mistake’ to Read Bombing Suspect Miranda Rights

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.”

Source

Some days, I'm outright uncomfortable to call myself a conservative for the fact people might just mistake me for a wanna-be tyrant like this.

It's very important to note ...This man was once in line of succession to the Presidency of the United States and he's run for it directly. Thank God he never came close to winning it.

America does not want Tyranny. America does not want a police state. This is what we'd have if political leaders could suddenly define what a terrorist is and is not. I don't know if the Boston Bombers were terrorists or not at this point. I understand the Police thought they may be and had fairly good reasons to suspect it at the time.

Hunting them like terrorists and then TREATING them (Americans ..like it or not) like "enemy combatants" after arrest and confinement are entirely different things. The first case is a bucket of unknowns and worst fears made real until someone is caught. The second? That is where our system is a bit more robust than Newt would seem to give it credit for. It's where holding the course and keeping Faith to what made this nation, is all we have left at times.



I think my feelings are best summed up by asking one simple question............

If we throw away what makes us special as a nation and we let slip away those freedoms that define America? What the hell ARE we fighting for, anyway?

What are we doing by cutting corners in favor of changing the game just enough to proclaim someone to be a non-citizen within the justice system? I have no idea. It looks like there's definitely something going on, and I don't think the static, peaceful existence of the US is the end objective anymore.

That sure explains why Newt bombed as a presidential candidate.
The second and third gen japanese in WW2 and Tesla went through the non citizen torture treatment
That was the excuse to take all of their posesions and land and to lock them up or deport them...
It was a shame then and its a shame now

I wonder if Obama, the killer of Al Maliki ( a regular visitor at the DoD after 911 ) and his citizen son who were killed with drone strikes ( along with all those other innocents in the US ally Pakistan ) would qualify for Newt's ire
Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dead non christian Iraqis Libyans and Afghanies.

Gingrich is a has-been who showed his true colors and more or less got the boot from the scene (at least for anybody with a sense of morality). This opinion doesn't surprise me one bit.

This is akin to the creation of laws to prosecute supposed "hate crimes". They are pinning hate crime on all sorts of people just to get it into a different jurisdiction or change the penalties. Same with this kid. He was part and parcel to killing 3 and injuring a bunch. There's been worse, so when they start hanging names like "enemy combatant", it displays an obvious agenda.

No reason he can't be tried fairly in MA court.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


It really does afford the "Boy" Allot more rights than if he had been declared an Enemy Combatant.

It is a really tricky situation. 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.

One good thing about a trial is that we will be able to compare it to this trial.
please note the FBI and other alphabet soup agencies involvement start to finish:

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?

haskellfamily.blogspot.ca...

reply to post by Danbones


I don't think that it will make it to Trial.

If he wants to LIVE he is Motivated, by a High Degree of Certainty, to make a deal for a LIFE Sentence.

By then I guess that would depend on how much he wants to live.

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?

Wait just a minute while I surround myself with asbestos. Ok, I'm ready. Gingrich has a pretty good case, I may be convinced.

There are two exceptions to the Miranda requirements, which are recognized by the Supreme Court. One, if the bad guy just starts talking freely on his own, without questioning or coercion. As an example, after a long foot chase, the bad guy gets caught and says "Man, if I knew I was going to have to run so far, I'd never have snatched that purse." He's out of luck, that can be used even without Miranda warnings.

The second exception is the public safety exception. And here, from the vast legal expertise of Wiki, comes the following:

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.

en.wikipedia.org...
I think you could easily argue that the fact there were other members of the cell loose, and that their next target seemed to be New York City, makes the public safety exception certainly plausible here.

Besides all that, the government might have decided that if they didn't give him Miranda, they could still make the case on the other evidence, and they still had a chance to get terrorist information from him.

The judge who decided to step in, wrongfully took that choice from them.

So, way to go, Newt! But I'm glad you're not our President.

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.

Bargaining Power? You mean he has the right to remain silent granted all US citizens and residents following the US Supreme Court case of Miranda Vs. Arizona (1966)?

I don't call that bargaining power.... I call that his right as he is entitled to it. I think the guy is pretty much the scum of the earth. It's when our rights and values are most attractive to compromise that their protection becomes most critical though. That's been proven time and again both here for generally coming out correctly ..and elsewhere in the world, to show what going badly looks like for that.

The dead brother was a fully naturalized U.S. Citizen. The one in custody now and the subject of the Miranda rights was a legal resident in the process of becoming a naturalized U.S. Citizen. Now we can argue that system needs work and reform and I may well agree with it. However, that is how things stand for their status then and now.

These aren't even people where it can be said they entered illegally with intent to attack the United States. THAT could at least hold some logical water for making an enemy combatant argument, in my humble opinion. This? Well, if legal residents are now subject to a revocation of that status and revocation of Constitutional Protections because they did something like Boston? Just what do we have a high level of legal system for? Why not simply throw it all into Military Courts as other nations absolutely do? Until now...it's been because our nation is flat out not meant to operate that way.

Incidentally.... What foreign influence? As we're finding here .... Russia may have been onto a problem here, but as much by contact back to Mom and Dad as anything else. I've yet to hear these two had any formal OR informal ties to a foreign terrorist organization. They seem to have been "radicalized" right here at home. That point isn't even supportive of erasing their rights, as it seems to me?

I'm wide open to logical argument to the contrary. This seems a slippery slope coated in Crisco and Banana Peels though. A long way down and nothing to catch the fall once it begins.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Hey wabbit.
Back in the mid ninties, ol newtie boy visited to Bohemian Grove in the redwoods just north of SanFrancisco. At that time there was a local group which tasked itself with keepin public awarness on the happenings at the grove and when newtie visited we were out in force, locked outside the gate.

Of course newt didn't come out to greet us but later in the evening a few of us were sitting in the Pink Elephant tossing down a few. It was game night and contests of Scrabble, lairs dice and Yahtzee were in full swing.Suddenly a hush fell over the crowd as the door opened and in he came with his entourage and the rest of the evening went something like this.

I got drunk and played Yahtzee with Newton the Nazi
and some of his friends from the coast.
Drinkin beer after beer we had nothing to fear
til somebody called for a toast.

I started to smile and shouted "sig heil"
then saluted the air with my hand.
I think I should mention they snapped to attention
then all of them turned to the band,

singing "play for awhile as they got in a file
and started without hesitation
to march in a line looking wonderfully fine.
as they marched out in lockstep formation.

You may think that I'm joking or maybe i"m smoking
that weed that can turn brains to mush,
but these mean little gerbals have found their own Goebbles
you know him he calls himself Rush.

So laugh if you wanna but listen their gonna
build up an American Reich.
If you value your freedom tell Newt we don't need em,
go away, pack your bags, take a hike.

If I recall as Charles mentioned they used the public safety clause to delay giving him his rights...
but one never knows what happened in the interim

I am a firm believer that he should have his Miranda rights read to him. He should have a trial, with a jury, competent legal counsel, and evidence presented for and against him.

I am just disheartened that the president and the AG agree with me that he has these rights, but we disagree on the "kill lists". The one where he can kill Americans without trial or evidence as long as he thinks they are a threat.

I'm not throwing mud at the democrats but that just seems a little odd doesn't it?

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?

So you figure that rights should be context based to how the outcome of violating them will be used??

I'm not defending the man in Boston. He's someone I'd very much like to see executed in the same room Timothy McVeigh got his 'Hot Shot'. Similarly, I'd never defend the views of the American Nazi Party who decided to have themselves a march down Main Street in Skokie, Illinois (When the Nazis came to Skokie). In both cases though ...the detestable people the issue is based on, aren't the issue itself. It's a fundamental question of our national values.

Are we a nation of laws that stand and are enforced without bias or aren't we? Are we a place that even pretends to be anymore? If HIS rights can be violated because it really really feels good at the time ...why not someone just a HAIR less so the next time? Perhaps a pinch less than that, the time after?

Bush tried this with Jose Padilla ...another real winner ..and he lost his tail on it. Americans and Residents cannot be treated like "Non-People" under the eyes of Constitutional Protection because it feels right to do. Who defines "right"?

In this case, the courts upheld the right values ...and Newt is coming out saying that's all wrong and the Courts need corrected on the matter. Well.. No.. NEWT needs corrected on the matter. Perhaps he needs to return to being a History Professor, if he was any good at that. He really sucks as a politician and he makes for a real scary one with comments like this.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I think somebody (politicians) who attempts to kill a lot of Americans (stressed caused by government BS) and who clearly was influenced (politicians) by an outside ideology(Wall Street) should be treated as an enemy combatant.



See how easy it is to define a terrorist.


Peace

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Let me be the "pee in the oatmeal" ( )

I'm not going to defend Newt, but who defines the word "terrorist"? Or "domestic terrorist"?

Aren't our laws based on definition?

We are all innocent until proven guilty.
But if you are a "terrorist" then you are guilty until proven innocent?

Someone help me understand this dichotomy, please.

reply to post by beezzer

Indeed Mr Bunny. That is precisely where I have the problem. Remember about a decade ago they said it in such a clear way? If they come from "over there" just to attack us "over here" then they are enemy combatants. Sounded pretty logical at the time...didn't it? Then they added that applied to anyone caught outside our borders who was fighting us. Okay...I figured...that still sounds mighty logical to me. Nothing wrong so far...

Then Jose Padilla came along as a natural born American, arrested in Chicago. Perhaps getting him in Pakistan wouldn't have seemed quite so ...wrong? Still, even THEN..well, a debate could be had. Was he training "over there" to come attack us "over here"?

Now, they aren't even suggesting "over there" need BE a factor at this point. Just attacking here. So... Technically McVeigh could have been recalled to Active Duty (and I seem to recall someone actually suggesting it at the time) so he could be legally bagged under the UCMJ. Now that mere suggestion was onto shaky ground which would leave California wondering the definition of shaky. Still, you know? He killed 168 people and blew down a Federal Building. People were pissed....yet it still wasn't done.

These two homegrown goobers killed THREE people and wounded over a hundred. Death Penalty? Yup....After he gets his trial he can join his sibling. Trial...Yes...That is important though, isn't it? I swear I read that in a document with a bunch of numbered items at one time...

Since I wasn't flamed for my last post, I'll try again.

My understanding is that it is not so much a right to get your Miranda warning, as it is to be protected from having a non-Mirandized statement used against you. I don't believe anyone has said, or could say, "The police asked me questions without giving me Miranda, I'm suing them." The problem only comes up when they try to use that information (or derivative information) in a prosecution.

reply to post by charles1952

Fair enough.. (and sorry, you won't get flamed by me. I respect your logic too much ...even if I disagree often enough).

That adds entirely NEW problems though, wouldn't you say? Fruit of the Poison tree anyone? How about he just spills his guts and says everything (Or writes it in this case..err..), after he's told he's a 'public safety exception' and won't be getting his Miranda rights?

It'd be a tangled web to weave, wouldn't it? How do you *legally* separate out later what could be used if the suspect being questioned with no intent to use anything from that session and no legal way to go back on that ...holds NOTHING back from representatives of the very agencies which will have to run the criminal probe afterward?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Dear Wrabbit2000,

WHAT?? You disagree with ME??? How could you? And how do you have the courage to admit to such a thing in public??

I really wasn't clear on the public safety exception. If the courts agree that the exception applies, prosecutors can use that information in any way they want; present it in court, use it to charge other people, anything.

I don't know for sure what the right call was in this case, but I'm pretty darn sure the judge had no business stepping in.

Also, I don't see this as a step towards taking away our rights. (Though heaven knows we're losing them fast enough as it is.)

With respect,
Charles1952