That’s an excellent summation that I can’t really add to. I’m a little embarrassed to admit that when she mentioned the whole Times Square incident I had to explain to my mother last night that accused =/= guilty. I was a little dumbfounded when she said, “If he’s not guilty, then why was he arrested?” It made me worry that that view is far too common.
But they did, just not immediately upon his arrest…right?
Seriously, what’s the issue here? How could not being mirandized be bad for the suspect? If he isn’t made of aware of his rights, he can’t waive them. Until he’s read his rights, he can say whatever he wants and it can’t be used against him. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me.
Now, later on, if they’re able to use something he said before hearing his rights against him in court, I could see some outrage there. But this is just stupid.
It is crazy, though, how Glenn Beck manages to be wrong about everything.
OMG, you are an idiot. We don’t take away the Constitutional rights of child rapists, gang bosses who are responsible fro killing thousands of people by pushing drugs, or Beck for lowering the collective IQ of America. The large majority of people who are arrested and tried are guilty, but they still have the rights to a fair trial, are not subject to cruel and inhuman punishment, and get read their Miranda rights. We do this to protect the occasional innocent person, but we also do it because we are a nation of laws and ideals.
This latest guy was arrested, has apparently confessed, and is giving information implicating others. WTF is the problem you are trying to solve?
Hell, McCain wasn’t even born in the United States and Palin chose to live in a state that borders Russia and Canada but not the contiguous US. What kind of American does that?
I did see you’d recanted this, but it still raises an interesting bugaboo–if that guy was Tim McWhitebread who parked that same bomb laden SUV in the same spot in Times Square but he did it because his former girlfriend and her new boyfriend walk past there every day at that time and he just wanted to off them, would you have flipped out and said that?
There’s been a concerted effort by conservatives to draw a line in the sand that makes “terrorism” a special and unique form of crime that requires major paranoia and over the top response–the kind of paranoia that allows for warrantless wiretaps and “papers, please” laws and the whole “no freedom” zone thing. They’ve got it down to a Pavlovian response by now–shit happens, scream “terrorism onoz OMG!!” then ratchet down the civil liberties of innocent citizens another notch under the pretext of “keeping America safe.”
It’s all about getting, keeping and expanding control over the lives, liberties and doings of regular, non-criminal citizens. There’s nothing MORE heinous or damaging about a terrorist bomb than a non-terrorist bomb. A bullet fired by a lily white American patriot kills just the same way as a terrorist’s bullet does. Being beaten to death by your husband hurts just as badly as being beaten to death by a terrorist. Crime is crime, criminals are criminals, and it’s just a bad idea to single out crimes done for one reason as being intrinsically worse than the same crime with a different motive. Except that one is a magic button that causes stupid people to allow infringements on their rights and liberties and the other ones aren’t.
In other words, the REAL terrorists have been winning all along. Let’s hope their streak ends here.
Any “spontaneous statements” someone makes to police prior to being given a Miranda warning are admissible in court so long as they weren’t in response to a question that was likely to lead to an incriminating response (or another exception doesn’t exist). So, if Shahzad decided to just start telling his life story to police immediately upon arrest, including involvement in past plots or other plots that are in the works, so long as there were no police questioning, there wouldn’t be a constitutional rights problem.
We need to bring back Perry Mason. In the cop shows today, arrested == guilty. In Perry Mason, arrested and tried == innocent. Maybe it would create some kind of balance.
ETA: I know they tried to bring him back - maybe well this time.
Not posting in the Pit after getting hammered.
I agree with the thrust of your post, but I was just as equally pissed when it was Tim McVeigh. Not because he was white or anything, but because he, like Faisal, was an American.
Both were traitors.
Although that’s useful information, it doesn’t really contradict my point.
I guess I should qualify “he can say whatever he wants” with “during questioning”. The point is, if he slipped up and said something self incriminating during the interrogation he got before hearing his rights, it can’t be used against him (or at least it shouldn’t be). Being mirandized doesn’t give him any new rights, just an opportunity to waive the ones he already has.
Thus proving the axiom “One man’s patriot is another man’s traitor”. I don’t know about this new guy, but McVeigh considered himself a patriot, and the government as the ones betraying the constitution.
Personally, I think that’s bullshit. Nevertheless, it points out the difficulty in alloting punishment by intent rather than by action.
Yes, it does. It gives him the right to have his constitutional rights as a suspect explained to him.
According to articles on the subject, police questioned him immediately without a Miranda warning about any active bombs or plots under the public safety exception. Then, at some point, police gave him a Miranda warning and began questioning him in full after he presumably waived his rights.
Now, if Shahdzan started talking about his own involvement in the Times Square plot or anything else incriminating without being asked a question about it during the initial public safety police questioning, those statements would likely be admissible since they would be spontaneous statements. But just to be sure, when police re-questioned him following the Miranda warning and waiver, they would try to elicit the same information.