May 5th, 2010

On Mirandizing Shahzad: there’s good news and bad

First, the good news:

[Shahzan was initially] interrogated “pursuant to the public-safety exception of the Miranda Rule,” says the GOP aide. That exception allows officials to question a suspect for a period of time without reading him his rights if officials believe there is an imminent threat of other attacks. “They said he provided important and actionable information,” the aide continues.

The bad news:

He was then Mirandized.

The good news:

…[H]e then waived his right to remain silent and to counsel and to be brought before a magistrate.

The bad news:

he could assert his right to remain silent at any time. And that is a result of the administration’s decision, similar to one made in the Abdulmutallab case, to read Shahzad his rights early in the process.

Here’s more:

Administration officials point out that Shahzad is a naturalized American citizen and thus is entitled to the full range of U.S. constitutional rights. That’s not entirely accurate. While being an American citizen means that Shahzad will ultimately be tried in civilian court — the Military Commissions Act applies only to aliens — there is no reason that Shahzad could not be declared an enemy combatant, held indefinitely and questioned at length during that period without Miranda rights…

So in the case of Shahzad, authorities are holding a Pakistani man who has been a naturalized citizen for the last year, much of which he spent in Pakistan apparently training for an attack on the U.S., who returned to this country to attempt to set off a bomb in the most heavily populated location imaginable, and who was headed back to Pakistan when he was caught. The courts have said such a man, a U.S. citizen, can be designated an enemy combatant. But so far, the Obama administration — just as it did in Detroit — has declined to take that course.

I’ve been wondering about Shahzad’s citizenship and when and how he obtained it. This is the first article I’ve seen that indicates it might have been very recently indeed—perhaps even after he had decided to return to Pakistan and train as a terrorist. This brings up the question of whether his becoming a citizen might have been intended expressly for the purpose of being tried as a civilian in our regular court system, should he be caught. After all, Shahzad had no plan to become a suicide bomber. He intended to survive, and he must have known he might be linked to the bombing. Did he want to make sure his legal circumstances would be the most favorable possible?

[ADDENDUM: Apparently, Shahzad become a citizen about a year ago because he married an American.]

51 Responses to “On Mirandizing Shahzad: there’s good news and bad”

  1. Artfldgr Says:

    Isn’t it funny that Miranda law is from Miranda vs AZ?

    When the Supreme Court made its landmark Miranda ruling in 1966, Ernesto Miranda’s conviction was overturned. Prosecutors later retried the case, using evidence other than his confession, and he was convicted again. Miranda served 11 years in prison and was paroled in 1972.

    At age 34, Ernesto Miranda was stabbed and killed in a 1976 bar fight. A suspect was arrested in Miranda’s stabbing, but exercised his right to remain silent.

    He was released without being charged.

  2. Thomass Says:

    Considering the guy is a US citizen, I’m not all against using the civilian system. Even if he became one to game the system.

    To me, the outrage from the left was that they claimed these protections for illegal enemy combatants caught outside the US (even in battles against our forces).

    I don’t trust the government, or progressives, with the power to take US citizens out of the regular judicial system….

  3. Bob from Virginia Says:

    Not that this makes a difference but I understand that one of the two ways to lose ones citizenship is to engage in combat against the US. The other is to formally renounce it.

  4. Mr. Frank Says:

    The purpose of a Miranda warning is to be able to use information provided by the suspect in a trial. In this case there is so much evidence that the talking by the accused is not necessary for a conviction. Much more important is any information he might provide about others. Thus it would be preferred that he not be told he doesn’t have to talk. Similarly, the underwear bomber was caught with the evidence and should not have been Mirandized in my opinion. This decision should be made on a case by case basis with terrorists. It should not be automatic.

  5. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “his brings up the question of whether his becoming a citizen might have been intended expressly for the purpose of being tried as a civilian in our regular court system, should he be caught.”

    There seems little doubt of it, as FOX just relayed the info that he comes from a wealthy, high status Pakistani family, thus no need to emigrate and every reason to stay.

    Equally disturbing is that his father, now retired, is the former head of the Pakistani Air Force…

    How long till the many elements within the Pakistani Military and Intelligence community, sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, attempt a coup in Pakistan?

    My guess is within a year of Obama’s pull out date in Afghanistan.

  6. MDL Says:

    Too many conservatives believe that Mirandizing a suspect grants special rights. But all it does is inform someone of existing rights. And as I mentioned yesterday if you don’t Mirandize someone then you risk having all the evidence thrown out.
    One solution is to just scrap the whole Miranda rights when dealing with terrorist suspects. The problem with that is that some are only suspects and you can’t have a system that takes away due process based on suspicions.

  7. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Unless you’re willing to chuck the Constitution over the side when its inconvenient, at some point you have to Mirandize any American citizen.

    By all means hold off if there’s any chance of an imminent threat. Certainly a convicted American terrorist should lose their citizenship and face the death penalty. Offer them life in prison if they immediately and fully cooperate, otherwise if convicted, they get to spend a few moments with ‘sparky’.

    I’m more disturbed that this guy visited Pakistan 13 times in the last year and was reported in Pakistani newspapers as having visited with a prominent Taliban sympathizer without making it onto any watch list.

    Jones, Brennan and Napolitano are a joke. But its no joke the American deaths they, Obama, the Dems and liberals are going to be complicit in.

  8. Thomas Says:

    MDL Says:

    “Too many conservatives believe that Mirandizing a suspect grants special rights. But all it does is inform someone of existing rights. And as I mentioned yesterday if you don’t Mirandize someone then you risk having all the evidence thrown out.”

    You’re mistaken. Once you Mirandize someone you’re letting them know they will be treated as a civilian in our criminal courts.

    The other option is a trip to gitmo and a military tribuneral… before which you wouldn’t normally read them Miranda….

  9. mikemcdaniel Says:

    Please allow me to clear up a few misconceptions about Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court’s 1968 decision. Under Miranda the police must inform criminal suspects of their rights against self incrimination and to an attorney only under particular circumstances. Initially, Miranda applied only to felonies, but over the years has more or less trickled down to misdemeanors as well. However, what most people don’t know is that Miranda applies only in cases of custodial interrogation. In other words, only when the suspect is in custody (under arrest, not free to go) and the police are asking them questions specifically aimed at proving that they committed an offense or offenses. If one or both of those requirements are absent, Miranda doesn’t apply. And if the police fail to mirandize when they should, only the statements obtained (and other evidence obtained as a result of those statements that would not have otherwise been inevitably discovered) are excluded. If other evidence sufficient for conviction exists, the bad guy is still in big trouble. Failure to Mirandize is, in fact, seldom a get out of jail free card.

    In many years as a police officer I found that most people will waive Miranda, and that those who won’t and “lawyer up,” are commonly guilty as sin, and commonly, sociopathic. But keep in mind that I’m talking about domestic criminals, people who have a distinctly modern, American, capitalistic, consumerist, self-preservationist mindset. They don’t want to kill others (usually) and certainly don’t want to die in the pursuit of breaking the law themselves. This bring us to The Question.

    Ah yes. The question. Are we fighting a war or merely managing or containing the occasional Overseas Contingency Operation? There is, of course, no doubt that those who wish to kill us know that they are fighting a war and conduct themselves accordingly, with several important exceptions, among them: They do not wear uniforms and they disregard the laws of war as noted in the Geneva Conventions. They also have the very great advantage of a Medieval mindset, which includes indoctrination from birth in a culture of death.

    When we fail to treat anyone–American citizen or not–as an unlawful combatant, we make a mockery of the criminal justice system, which is not in any way properly constituted or organized to handle such people, and we knowingly, foolishly throw away war fighting advantages and necessities that can and will result in unnecessary American deaths. That the current terrorist murderer has reportedly given up some self incriminating information is not an affirmative argument that all terrorists be mirandized and treated to civilian trials. Such treatment of medieval murderers only encourages more of them, prepares them for more effective manipulation of the criminal justice system, encourages them to withhold vital information for the purposes of plea bargaining, and encourages them to lie for the same purposes.

    Modern terrorists, like the North Vietnamese before them, know that they cannot defeat American on the battlefield, but the domestic propaganda arena is another matter entirely. The propaganda value of such public trials is incalculable, as is the value of intelligence and sources and methods that, by law must be turned over to the defense, and through them (yes, too many defense attorneys will turn such information over to terrorists; they already have), other terrorists. And of course, we now entertain the bizarre fact that the American taxpayer must foot the bills for lawyers for those who wish nothing more than to eradicate every American, to say nothing of the bills for security and other incidentals that will run into the billions for single trials.

    But they’re American citizens! They have rights! No. Attempting to wage war against America rather cancels citizenship, don’t you think? In such cases, the only concern should be making sure that we add treason to the other charges which will be tried in a military venue appropriate to suppressing propaganda, protecting American lives and keeping our vital secrets. To do otherwise indicates, on the part of our government, a profoundly dangerous and foolish lack of adult seriousness and resolve and of the nature of those who would, if they could, murder every American alive.

  10. Occam's Beard Says:

    Isn’t it funny that Miranda law is from Miranda vs AZ?

    Not so much. Here’s what’s funny:

    At age 34, Ernesto Miranda was stabbed and killed in a 1976 bar fight. A suspect was arrested in Miranda’s stabbing, but exercised his right to remain silent.

    He was released without being charged.

    Karma’s a bitch. Exhibit A.

  11. Boots Says:

    From what I’ve been seeing around the web, Shahzad came to the US around 1999 or 2000. In those 10 years, he went back to Pakistan 13 times, most recently this past year for most of the year.

    His US citizenship was aided by the fact that he married a US citizen.

  12. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “Attempting to wage war against America rather cancels citizenship, don’t you think? “

    Yes, once convicted I do.

    But there’s the rub, so I must ask, in applying that standard before being convicted, aren’t you advocating a form of, they’re guilty until proven innocent?

    Aren’t you saying that if you are an American citizen but merely accused by the gov’t. of being a terrorist, you lose your Constitutional rights?

    Not to discount the very real concerns you raise and assuming a military trial to be fair, isn’t it also true that they do not offer the same degree of defense that a civilian trial offers?

    In those cases where the suspect is innocent, they would not receive a fair trial by a jury of their peers.

    Might this not become a case of the cure being worse than the disease?

    Do you really want to give Obama that power? I don’t.

  13. Geoffrey Britain Says:


    That places a different light on things. Visiting ones family, essentially once a year is not in and of itself suspicious. Nor is an extended vacation.

    Locks are for honest people. Criminals and terrorists can always find ways around any system.

  14. jon baker Says:

    On the one hand, an American Citizen ought to be treated as an American citizen irregardless of however angry that might make us feel.

    On the other hand, this to me is just one more argument that we ought to deal with our immigration issues- both legal and illegal-now. Both need to be limited-and since we probably cannot discriminate on national origin or religion-even though we used to limit immigration to certain numbers from this country or that-close the border.

  15. MDL Says:

    Occam’s Beard Says

    Miranda was stabbed and killed….suspect released.

    Why is that funny? And why would you be opposed to Miranda rights in general? Do you think everyone is guilty until proven innocent?

  16. Assistant Village Idiot Says:

    MDL, do you really not understand, or are you engaging in rhetorical ploys to try and force OB to say something you deplore? I am guessing the latter because you are misreading him in a particular direction, which would seem calculated. But it might be the former.

    When a conservative says something that seems to you outrageous and indefensible, it may be that you are hearing whole chords (nay, symphonies) when a single note is being played.

  17. Thomass Says:

    MDL Says:

    “Why is that funny?”

    It really is hard to describe humor… but I found it quite amusing… Nemesis is a bi*ch.

  18. neo-neocon Says:

    Geoffrey Britian: that’s interesting info about the father. The underwear bomber’s father was also a very prominent and successful man, a bank executive I believe. This appears to be a new pattern for Islamic terrorists in this country—son of prominent man in home country. Reminds me a bit of Bill Ayers, actually.

  19. njartist49 Says:

    Not that this makes a difference but I understand that one of the two ways to lose ones citizenship is to engage in combat against the US. The other is to formally renounce it.

    Another way is to have been -gasp- a Nazi; not a mighty rocket scientist or an important leftwing philosopher (Lacan), but a mere prison guard of questionable guilt.

    This is why I think that as a citizen he is to be permitted to make use of hte rights that citizenship provides him; then, he is to be stripped of that citizenship once that trial is over.

    Remember, for this administration, those who oppose it are unpatriotic and seditious: it is a small easy step to being terrorists.

  20. Richard Aubrey Says:

    It is said that a judge in one of Miranda’s series of trials remarked that the subject of his guilt or innocence, or of the crime, never arose.

  21. narciso Says:

    Well head of Civil Aviation, but that is often an intelligence front in some countries, and Shahzad
    started his schooling in Saudi Arabia in the mid 80s, suggesting his father might have been attache in Riyadh.
    Considering that ISI chief General Hamid Gul was a patron of the Taliban, in and out of office, and Bearden
    his opposite number in Islamabad was unaware, the
    affiliation of other figures like Colonel Imam, Amir Sultan
    and Squad Leader Khawaja, it raises a question.

  22. Bob From Virginia Says:

    Excellent comment Mikemcdaniel. I wonder if most Americans have grown so wary of trying to oppose the silly and self-defeating treatment of “illegal non-combatants” that it is now accepted as normal. Call this another coup for Obama, producing indifference in a now eviscerated public, with the added benefit of encouraging attacks against a country he hates.

  23. CBI Says:

    One problem is that most people are trying to fit Islamic jihadist terrorism into one of two paradigms: a “criminal law” paradigm, or a “military action” paradigm. There’s good evidence, however, that neither is an appropriate category.

    Richard Posner has made the same point. It won’t happen under an Obama administration (unless originated in the congress), but I think the country needs to work to set up this third framework. I’m not convinced that it shouldn’t take a constitutional amendment: the constitution doesn’t recognize this grey area (except tangentially with respect to maritime law).

    In the meantime, a locational determination may be best.

    For a U.S. citizen committing a crime and caught within the U.S. (or in relatively “hot pursuit”), the criminal framework is really the only choice. (Do any of you *really* want the Obama administration to be able to declare someone a “terrorist” and no longer subject to Constitutional protections?)

    For a U.S. citizen abroad — on the battlefield, so to speak — then the military framework seems most appropriate.

    For non-U.S. citizens, perhaps the military framework is appropriate for all but long-term resident aliens (who would better fit the criminal law framework).

    But this should be debated publicly and hashed out politically and put into law by the legislature: that’s their *job*.

  24. Gray Says:

    mikemcdaniel nailed it, I think.

    Fizzle Shahzad is a citizen, Mirandize him. He gets the full protection of the Constitution….

    You can blame the State Department and our inept intelligence agencies for him becoming a citizen.

    It takes a Radical Muslim to drive a car bomb into Times Square. It takes an American MBA to fail in igniting gasoline with fire!

  25. Poor Richard Says:

    Geoffrey Britain:

    You might have heard about a little dust-up called the American Civil War. Did you know that hundreds of thousands of American citizens were killed, wounded, or imprisoned without being arrested, let alone convicted? I’m shocked! Shocked! Seems like that old white man running the country at the time thought that if you took up arms against the US, you forfeited your rights — without a trial. What a right-wing teabagging lunatic that Lincoln fellow was!

  26. njartist49 Says:

    Here is further reason why we should not strip naturalized citizen Shahzad of his rights from Big Government:
    As our readers have already learned, Rep. Andre Carson gathered Capitol Hill reporters around him and told the tale of racial slurs and menacing crowds on the verge of hurling rocks at the congressmen. Our first few videos showed the congressmen coming out of the Cannon Office Building, walking down the steps and into Independence Avenue from various angles. None of those videos revealed the racial hatred Rep. Carson conveyed to reporters that day and none of the videos showed a mob rushing or in any way impeding the congressmen.

    When Rep. Carson gathered reporters around him to spread the myth of racial slurs being hurled “fifteen times” he painted the protesters not just as racists, but as a terrorist threat.

    This issue is what is making me think that people like Hannity, Savage, or any other “conservative” talk show host who opposed Mirandizing Shahzad are not true conservtaives; I would go so far as to say they are agent provocateurs for the progressives.

  27. Sergey Says:

    This third approach, different from both civil criminal law and martial law, must look like what Inquisition did in its treatment of heresy, because militant Islam is nothing short of aggressive, belligerent heresy. It must be based on using internal spying and secret political police as the main source of evidence against involved in domestic terrorism, since no other approach is workable. This approach was with a great success used by Russian Okhranka against Russian terrorist revolutionaries in the the last two decades of 19 century.

  28. Artfldgr Says:

    your pointing out the excuse to make an internal spy agency like the ***… didn’t Obama say that’s what he would do? In other words, Islamic jihad is facilitating the state organs of a police state for ‘other reasons’…

    heck… you know your in trouble when mother goose and grim are now pushing the collective meme

  29. Sergey Says:

    There is no denial that Russia was the first European nation hit hard with a huge wave of ideologically motivated terrorism, with fanatical martyrdom element attached to it, and that her political police was up to the task and successfully extinigished it, without serious damage to civil liberties of educated society. All educated liberals despised Okhranka, but they did not accused it in abuse of its formidable powers, because there were no abuse.

  30. colagirl Says:

    Count me in on the side of Thomass and john baker. This guy is an American citizen, and he was caught on American soil (i.e. not taken as a prisoner on a foreign battlefield, like John Walker Lindh.) That means, regretfully, he deserves the full panoply of rights we would extend to any other American citizen suspected of committing a crime. To me, that’s a bright line that you don’t want t mess with. The problem I have is in attempting to extending these rights to non-citizens, including clearly defined enemy combatants taken in battle. They aren’t citizens, so by definition they don’t fall under the Constitutional protections.

    I also agree with john baker that this is a clear-cut sign we need to deal with our immigration issues, as well. Apparently this guy was on some kind of a watch list since before he was naturalized; one would think that would have raised some red flags that maybe allowing this guy in wasn’t such a good idea. Apparently not though….

  31. Sergey Says:

    In Europe the only political force capable to save it from islamisation are so-called “fascists” like Dutch Freedom Party, BNP and French National Front. I expect them to rise to power in the next decade. Not that I like them very much, but they are lesser evil compared to Islamists and leftist liberals. They will do their job and wash out.

  32. Aine Says:

    If we stand for the Constitution, he gets read his rights once he became a naturalized citizen.

    Otherwise, aren’t we are hypocrites of the same degree as the ‘Cafeteria Catholics’ of the U.S. Senate and Congress, who pick and choose which segments suit us best, and under what circumstances.

    The more serious issue, IMHO, is when the hell is the administration and the Left going to pull their heads out and understand that Muslims want to kill the rest of us. If 9/11 wasn’t enough, what on earth will waken these elitists once and for all?

  33. Artfldgr Says:

    Under socialism an indigent on the street and Thomas Alva Edison are equal, neither produces anything – Artfldgr

  34. Emily Says:

    This isn’t about a terrorist. This is about protecting a standard order of procedure that protects citizens. I would think that holding on to conservative ideology, you would not want to give the government an opportunity to chose when Miranda rights apply to citizens.

  35. Sergey Says:

    Today Russian speznas (Mariners) stormed hijacked Russian tanker and arrested all these Somali pirates, except one who was killed in action. Somehow I doubt that they Mirandized the pirates. They would be put on trial in Moscow and sent to prison camp.

  36. Thomass Says:

    This probably has a regional cultural aspect to it. California (my home state) is very legalistic. People unconsciously think that the rule of law is good but know it produces loopholes (adherence to the laws vs. allowing creative interpretations of it which gives authorities more wiggle room). They also tend to accept people using loopholes because the alternative is removing the rule of law (and people are often not looked down on for taking advantage of them). But once located, reasonable steps should be taken to close them.

    In this case, the proposals seem dangerous / pose a great threat to the whole system involved. Allowing for some use of the loophole seems a better option. Alas, life is not always fair (a universal conservative meme).

  37. Sergey Says:

    Government already can chose what is more important: intelligence gathering or reinforcing evidence in a court. If they have a smoking gun, as is the case now, they need not use in a court any confessions to secure conviction.

  38. Curtis Says:

    MikeMcDaniels: I loved your comments. Especially the medieval tag. Ironic because its my perception that Islam caused the dark ages and the view that it was Christian barbarism which engulfed and replaced enlightened Latin and Greek civilization is one huge myth. A corrollary point here, Sergey mentioned the Inquisition, which has also been misrepresented.

    But Geoffrey Britain brought a point which I’d like to hear your reply: Isn’t there some application of applying a “guilty before innocent” standard? This war is and isn’t like our civil war, so I don’t think one can use that as an analogy.

    What I’m concerned about is the provision of too much power may find its way into wrong hands. (I’m thinking Obama and his proposed citizens army here)

    You were a policeman and obviously an honorable and intelligent one. You were old cloth, the type of material that upheld the law and also represented internal standards of right and wrong. There’s not that much old cloth these days and many people don’t even believe in absolutes such as right and wrong.

  39. Artfldgr Says:

    Since this has immigration related poitns to it. i put this here.

    its VERY interesting that there is already a movie trailer out for “This Is Machete”

    but there is a slightly NEW version…
    [that makes things more interesting]

    basically this is part of the new race hate propaganda movies.

    the idea is to get ‘natives’ very angry at everyone and get them to be very violent.

    sad to say, but mexicans are vastly more ignorant than even left liberals.

    take the time to read the literature, and look at the media portrayal of the class enemy (a certain race,etc)

    Both are very long on propaganda, and VERY VERY good agitprop.

    pathfinder didnt make as much.

    but the new spin by changing a few things for machette, will make extremely good agitprop.

    espeically if you see who is staring in it.
    [anyone want to do the cui buono search to find which chavez etc favored what did what?]

    [you can find the original trailer on you tube… which will get the air time? or will they do as they did with blacks in the south? in wholly spanish areas, play the agitpropr, and in mixed areas play the clean one. that dates back to hayes tilden]

  40. Artfldgr Says:

    just to note who is staring in it (and its graphics are like a soviet realism, spaghetti western, James Bond mash up)

    Robert De Niro
    Steven Seagal
    Lindsay Lohan
    Cheech Marin
    Jeff Fahey
    Jessica Alba
    Michelle Rodriguez
    Don Johnson

    Best line…

    “We didnt cross the border, the border crossed us!!!”

    oh… and how the politicians of Arizona talk about Spanish people. (referring to them as cockroaches in the Spanish term)

    so basically they are reworking the film before release.

    Machete was originally a hard-edged trailer featured in Grindhouse that became fanboy fodder since its first showing at the 2006 Comic-Con. “‘Machete’ had become my most requested movie and I never actually made it, so when the opportunity arose to answer the call with such an amazing cast, I jumped.” said Rodriguez.

    The feature version of the trailer finds Machete (Trejo) a renegade former Mexican Federale, roaming the streets of Texas after a shakedown from drug lord Torrez (Seagal). Reluctantly, Machete takes an offer from spin doctor Benz (Fahey) to assassinate McLaughlin (De Niro) a corrupt Senator. Double crossed and on the run Machete braves the odds with the help of Luz (Rodriguez), a saucy taco slinger, Padre (Marin) his “holy” brother, and April (Lohan) a socialite with a penchant for guns. All while being tracked by Sartana (Alba), a sexy ICE agent with a special interest in the blade slinger.

  41. Artfldgr Says:

    The trailer was released Wednesday, just 24 hours after an envelope filled with a still-undetermined white powder was sent to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, temporarily closing the State Capitol in Phoenix. The powder spilled out when a staffer opened it Tuesday morning, sending Hazmat teams scrambling through the governor’s offices.
    No one was sickened, but state police and the FBI are investigating the incident.

  42. Artfldgr Says:


    CBC urges approval of $1.5B jobs bill to stem summer violence

    ie.. give us money or we will tear your cities apart…

    Black lawmakers are urging the Senate to pass a summer jobs bill even if it adds to the deficit.

    Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Chairwoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and others on Thursday said unemployment rates in the inner cities are well above the national average and could lead to violence by inner-city youth during the hot summer.

    They said their $1.5 billion jobs bill should be approved as “emergency” legislation, which would negate pay-as-you-go rules stipulating that bills must be offset with other spending cuts or revenue-raisers. The legislation has already been approved by the House, but is stalled in the Senate.

    “We all want to reduce the deficit — we understand that and we get that,” Lee said at a press conference. “Many of us supported pay-go, but we also supported it understanding that the provisions for emergency spending were there if such a designation were made. And this is an emergency.”

    Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) said youth violence had already begun but would likely escalate over the summer after school lets out and the young are turned out onto the streets with no job to keep them out of trouble.

    of course its all tea partiers, and immigrants..


    when they cant give enough benefits to the projects and there isnt any money to give them

    lock down is coming…

  43. neo-neocon Says:

    njartist49: painting someone as a terrorist isn’t enough. Two things are necessary: being allied with a foreign terrorist movement that is at war with the US, and such an alliance being proven in court, not merely alleged.

    The episode you cite fails both tests, and is therefore irrelevant.

  44. Artfldgr Says:

    would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad appeared on a Department of Homeland Security travel lookout list – Traveler Enforcement Compliance System (TECS) – between 1999 and 2008 because he brought approximately $80,000 cash or cash instruments into the United States. TECS is a major law enforcement computer system that allows its approximately 120,000 users from 20 federal agencies to share information. The database is designed to identify individuals suspected of or involved in violation of federal law.

  45. Artfldgr Says:

    Obama culturally muslim (ex plo)

  46. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Poor Richard,

    Why the sarcastic tone?

    Yes, I’ve ‘heard’ of the Civil War and elements certainly apply. The Union, in the main, killed, wounded, or imprisoned uniformed combatants without trial.

    While they also inadvertently killed southern civilians and imprisoned those caught actively assisting the south’s armies, when a military objective was not involved, they didn’t intentionally kill, wound, or imprison southern civilians. Not even Sherman, in his march to the sea across Georgia, did that.

    Lincoln’s refusal to target the south’s civilians, demonstrates that he didn’t view them as traitors, who had automatically lost their US citizenship.

  47. mikemcdaniel Says:

    Dear Curtis:

    Thanks for your kind comments. In addition, you wrote:

    “But Geoffrey Britain brought a point which I’d like to hear your reply: Isn’t there some application of applying a “guilty before innocent” standard? This war is and isn’t like our civil war, so I don’t think one can use that as an analogy.

    What I’m concerned about is the provision of too much power may find its way into wrong hands. (I’m thinking Obama and his proposed citizens army here)”

    My point is that our entirely rational and necessary presumption of innocence for domestic criminal defendants is just that: A presumption borns of a constitutional right we accord to domestic criminal defendants who happen to be citizens. We routinely accord constitutional protections to non-citizens who commit crimes as well. I am not for a second advocating that this important right be ignored or weakened.

    However, what some, including Geoffrey Britain appear to miss, is that our President has the authority, which is fully Constitutional and supported by the supposed gold standard of socialist moralists–the Geneva Conventions–to declare even American citizens unlawful combatants and to therefore divert them from civilian criminal justice into the military system where our intelligence secrets may be properly protected. Even the military system is required to meet constitutional standards, but its use avoids every downside of criminal trials for terrorists.

    American citizens who turn on America and give aid and support to unlawful combatants should and must be declared unlawful combatants by our president (who does have that completely legal authority). It matters not that they are apprehended within the borders of the continental United States or on a foreign battlefield, their offenses are the same and the need to hold them to the different but fair standards of military justice is great and should be seen as a necessity rather than an occasionally adopted option. The presumption of innocence is also a part of the military justice system. This is particularly true of foreign nationals who game the system to gain citizenship as part of a cover in their furtherance of Jihad.

    Obama already has this power–every American president has had it–and while I agree that virtually any power held by Obama is in the wrong hands, it is a power with which he can do little mischief to the innocent. The problem is that he is highly unlikely to use that power to the detriment of terrorists, and failing to use that power against terrorists constitutes direct aid to terrorists. Remember that the Constitution cannot be read to be a suicide pact. Politicians who wish to read it that way and act on such misguided convictions are quite dangerous.

  48. Artfldgr Says:

    Interesting point as to the Okhranka, and as to your last point, Napolitano (judge) mentiones that.

    It might be that you and I both can refer to such complicated examples from history that were solved in such ways, or even more complicated ways (Bently comes to mind)

    If this was the old america i remember… it both had application and their points didnt violate double jeopoardy… then he could be tried in both… not to mention have civil damages trial.

    that is, i think many are missing the point of how to apply law in its full freedom

    you dont do either or… when was that it?

    if he broke laws pertaining to military, guess what? he can be prosecuted for those laws.

    if he ALSO broke laws pertaining to civilian conduct, guess what? he can be prosecuted for those laws.

    and even if they couldn’t build a case or chose not to prosecute criminally or military… someone could still take him to civil court for damages from his actions.

    what the heck is this either or bs?
    he serves in Sing Sing up the river
    then he serves in Leavenworth
    any money he makes goes to victims as always

    if any of the countries he passed through want to get him for moving 80k around, they can have em when we are done.

    personally i dont see the problem..
    i dont see it as either or.

    you want to bridge a gap and say nyah nyah you dont have laws for this.

    i will say, yes we do… you get to be prosecuted by both!!! for whatever offenses in EACH you committed.

    i think thats what kept them from doing this that much in the old days. you get double jeopardy as far as specific offenses.

    he is a civilian and military man…

    Saturday night live solved this ages ago..

    New Shimmer!!!!

    he acts like both, he is both, he gets both legal problems…

  49. Curtis Says:

    To MikeMcDaniel: Thanks for the reply. I’m convinced.

  50. Poor Richard Says:

    Geoffrey Britain:

    So Union troops had no right to shoot at — without attmepting to arrest or Mirandizing — Quantrill’s Raiders and other Southern guerillas because they weren’t wearing uniforms? Or at John Brown, for that matter? Or at the Whiskey rebels?

    Ex Parte Quirin, 317 US 1 (1942) holds that even US citizens who are unlawful combatants may be tried by military tribunal:

    “ …the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.”

    How does Shazad not fall into this category?

  51. DavidD Says:

    A little off-topic, but your good news / bad news / good news / bad news reminded me of the favorite book from my childhood, Fortunately, by Remy Charlip.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge