Fair enough. I’m basing that statement on my own impressions and I don’t have anything solid to back it up. I’ll retract that until when/if I can support the bigotry claim.
Well for one thing, they’re his rights. Supposedly that means something in America. Secondly, by that logic, why read anyone their rights, ever?
I think there were a host of people out there who knew their hopes and wishes would have no outcome on the situation, but nonetheless crossed their fingers and hopped it would turn out to be a …
I don’t know, either a Muslim or a right wing wacko.
Which was larger, the group hoping it was a Muslim or the group hoping it was a right winger? Of course there are all sorts of sub-sub-groups out there with their own malignant hope-that-it’s-their-least-favourite-group.
I hope these numbers are small relative to the overall group or population.
Anyone want to speculate as to which is the larger group?
Where’s Chuck Norris when you need him? 
BTW, just to be clear: I was joking about the shooting. I wish I didn’t feel I had to 'splain that, but with the Dope, one never knows…
Just read your link, and it says this
Whaaa??? Beck said something intelligent and reasonable? I feel like my entire world is falling apart! Up is down! Right is left! It’s a sign of the apocalypse! Brimstone from the sky, rivers and seas boiling, forty years of darkness, earthquakes, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats …living together! How can I live in a world that no longer makes sense?! 
Wow, you guys are absolute idiots. You should read real news sources next time (for example CNN, which if anything is left-leaning); there is an exception to Miranda in cases of public safety. I can’t speak for McCain or anyone else but my understanding is that many people thought this guy shouldn’t be Mirandized until some initial questioning was completed to see if there were any other bombs or anything of that nature.
If you actually have been paying attention, you’ll note that the Deputy Director of the FBI came out and said that the suspect was not read his Miranda rights initially because of this very reason. So actually the FBI already did more or less as was suggested by McCain, and it doesn’t violate any constitutional principles. In fact it complies with a pretty well established exception to Miranda.
Furthermore, not reading someone their Miranda rights is only bad for the prosecution. You’re not denying anyone of any of their constitutional rights when you don’t Mirandize them, all you’re doing is making anything you get from that person toxic in terms of its admissibility in later criminal trials (i.e., you’re fucking up your investigation.)
Check this from CBSNews:
Nah, we got plenty of pilots who need bombing practice.
You know much digging you’ll need to do? YOU bury the bodies. I hate digging.
-Joe
Crazy, isn’t it? Almost like this…
And nothing’s been violated. Nothing he says can be used against him in a court of law if miranda wasn’t read to him. I already answered the question. If they have evidence to convict him then getting information about other people/events is a bonus.
And you know what I see in all these cases? The sentence “The suspect continued to cooperate after being read his rights.” Especially in high profile cases like this, there’s no reason to not go by the book.
TERR’RISTS! MOOSLIMS! BOMBS! ISLAM! Why do you hate America?!
It’s one thing to cloak comments in procedural drapings, strategic planning, and context-specific outcomes. There are valid viewpoints in timing and risk/benefits that fully respect upholding the spirit of Miranda, though there may be general disagreement thereof.
However, I think it’s a bit of an extension to ascribe those arguments and rationale discourse to McCain and King. Both have been on record as eschewing due process rights (particularly as enshrined in Miranda) for much baser reasons than being put forth here. That is, in the case of “enemy combatants,” the screed isn’t so much a considered opinion as to how to effectively prosecute a crime while maintaining the essence of the Constitution as it has been a partisan attack founded on quick sound-bite claims of denial that such suspects deserve due process in the first place.
No doubt this is why his ratings have dropped 30%. Hard to believe he survived that controversy about the time he raped and killed a girl in 1990 but he says one reasonably intelligent thing and he loses a third of his audience.
Looks like a media trend:
Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly– down 3%
MSNCB’s Rachel Maddow – down 8%
Fox News’ Greta Van Sustren – down 13%
Fox News’ Sean Hannity – down 17%
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews – down 23%
MSNBC’s Headline News – down 26%
MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann – down 28%
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer – down 37%
CNN’s Campbell Brown – down 39%
CNN’s Anderson Cooper – down 41%
CNN’s Larry King – down 46%
Nobody seems to want to address your post. I agree with you with the caveat that I find it highly unlikely that McCain and King were voicing their opinion on this matter with the knowledge of this exception to the Miranda rule.
Good thing neither of them are directly involved in the arrest, interrogation and prosecution of this fuckwit, huh?
I was…surprised to be in agreement with Glenn Beck about something. But a stopped clock and all that…
I’d like to address this, but I’m pretty tired tonight. For now, I’ll just say that I like how FoieGrasIsEvil responded and somewhat agree. I’d add that I wouldn’t be surprised if McCain and King were totally unaware of the exception.
Also, there was a link to the Politico story in the BJ post and I also edited it into the OP. I think most would agree Politico is mainstream and that if it has any bias, its towards the right (forex the recent-ish Cheney interview).
Apropos of nothing in particular, the rights of acused persons enumerated in the Bill of Rights are specifically extended to “persons,” and “accused,” not “citizens.” I grant that no one has said otherwise in this thread, but heavy emphasis on the fact of his citizenship lends a few of the posts a soupçon of "if he weren’t a citizen, this would be a different mattter."
I guess I’m missing something here, but I’m not sure what they gain by not reading the suspect his rights. Are they hoping that the suspect doesn’t realize he has the right to remain silent, and would care? So if he’s guilty, he’s thinking “I was going to murder as many innocents as I could, but I better not remain silent! I don’t think I have that right!”
The public safety exception, established in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 657-59 (1984), is very limited though. In Quarles, an armed robbery suspect fled into a supermarket and when apprehended, police noticed that he had an empty gun holster. Given the open and public nature of the supermarket, police questioned him about the gun’s whereabouts without a Miranda warning despite the fact that he was certainly in police custody.
In the case of Faisal Shahzad (the confessed Times Square bomber), the public safety exception to Miranda would cover any police questioning of him immediately after taking him into custody about whether there were any other bombs or bomb plots that were imminent. Anything that was not an imminent threat to public safety - such as the identities of co-conspirators for the Times Square plot, where he was trained, or long term plots - would require a Miranda warning.
Please don’t assume the authority of a criminal law expert if you are not one. The Miranda warnings that are near common knowledge in the US today are paraphrased from the holding of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). If you had read that case, you would know that the very purpose of the warning is to ensure that a suspect’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights have not been violated by warning him/her of them. The Court established a bright-line rule so that if someone did want to waive their rights, such a waiver would be knowing and intelligently made (at least in respect to their constitutional rights). Without either an exception or a knowing and intelligent waiver, any un-Mirandized statement offered for use against the speaker of the statement will be deemed a violation of their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The Court in Miranda didn’t make up a rule by sticking their finger up in the air and pronouncing it good, they based it on the Constitution (or more specifically, the Bill of Rights).