Glenn Beck was Right

“He is a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens.  If you are a citizen, you obey the law and follow the Constitution. [Shahzad] has all the rights under the Constitution. We don't shred the Constitution when it is popular, we do the right thing."

Glenn Beck - Fox and Friends - 05/04/2010 talking about Faisal Shahzad - the Times Square Bomber (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201005040007)

I agree with Glenn Beck. 

A suspect’s right against self incrimination is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. It is the bulwark that keeps the State from using its overwhelming powers against an individual suspected of a crime. 

Reminding a suspect of these rights by reading them their Miranda warning, reinforces to both the State and the accused that there are limits to what the State can do to extract evidence. 

Shahzad talked both before and after he was read his Miranda warning. It didn’t take beatings, sleep deprivation, intimidation or water-boarding to get him to reveal enough information to implicate the Taliban In Pakistan and to trigger arrests of members of his overseas support network. 

Despite that, the race is on to see who can score the most points being tough on terrorist.

First up is Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn), who along with Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass) proposed a law that would automatically strip a terrorist suspect of his or her US citizenship and its protections. (http://lieberman.senate.gov/assets/pdf/TEA_full.pdf).  

Their proposal overturns Supreme Court decisions from the 1960’s as well as State Department precedent set since the early 1990’s. (http://opiniojuris.org/2010/05/06/lieberman-terrorist-expatriation-act-constitutional-but-meaningless/). 

We have to remember that this proposal comes, not only after a failed terrorist attack, but less than two years after an election where a main theme of one candidate for the Presidency was the inference that his (and her) opponent supported a terrorist.

Sen. John McCain (R-Az) was content to let then Governor Sarah Palin fire up the far right of the Republican party by accusing Obama of “palling around terrorists.”  They did nothing to tamp down the far right’s speculation that Obama was a Muslim, a foreigner, and a terrorist sympathizer, all of which remain part of the Tea Party and “Birther” creeds today. 

Now that these forces have completed their takeover of the Republican party, what would prevent them from using this power against their enemies? 

Not much. Look at recent history.   

When the Patriot Act was passed it contained broad powers for the government to initiate electronic surveillance of US citizens. Civil libertarians were reassured over and over again, that due process would be strictly enforced and thus, citizens’ rights would be protected. The government promised to listen in on only conversations of high-level suspects in major terrorist investigations. 

This turned out not to be the case.

The government listened to and recorded virtually every overseas phone conversation made after the Patriot Act was passed.  Investigators even passed around recordings of some of the more salacious calls for their own amusement.

With that track record could anyone doubt, that if enacted, Lieberman’s proposal would be widely abused?

Second up is Attorney General Eric Holder

When asked while testifying on Capitol Hill if reading Shahzad his Miranda warning had stopped the flow of information Holder answered “No, it did not. As we have seen in prior investigations, the giving of Miranda warnings has not deterred people from talking to us, and Mr. Shahzad is, in fact, continuing to cooperate with us.” 

But by 05/09/2010 on the Sunday talk show “This Week” Holder back tracked a bit and said:  “I think we have to give serious consideration to at least modifying that public-safety exception [to the Miranda requirements]. And that’s one of the things that I think we’re going to be reaching out to Congress…to come up with a proposal that is both constitutional, but that is also relevant to our times and the threats that we now face.”  (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36965.html#ixzz0nSKpnqNX).

The public safety exception to Miranda, was firmly established by the US Supreme Court in 1984 in New York v. Quarles.  The police can interrogate a suspect about an immediate danger to the public, such as asking “are there other devices out there,” or “are you acting alone?”  

The current exception would have covered the situation in Times Square. It is hard to see what purpose broadening it would serve.  

In this race to be tough, there seems to be very little discussion of a more important issue - if we limit the very freedoms that make this country what it is, have the terrorist won with only a dud bomb in a second-hand SUV?  

The best thing we can do to protect this country and what it stands for is to uphold its laws and values. Glenn Beck is right, the freedoms and protections guaranteed by the Constitution are for everyone, even when we feel attacked and even if when we feel afraid.