But Still...
When word of the arrest of Faisal Shahzad got out last night, I was tempted to write a post betting that within 12 hours, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) would be on the record calling the administration a bunch of pansies for Mirandizing a US citizen who has committed a crime. Well, I was right.
Someone from the Right really needs to explain the following contradictions to me:
UPDATE: Upon further reflection, I think it's a mistake on my part to focus on blowhard comments from King and McCain. The real story here is the successful inter-agency law enforcement efforts. Here are two posts from the VC on the topic: a) tracking the identity of Shahzad and b) nabbing him before departure.
UPDATE 2: You can listen to the ATC tape of Emirates Flight 202 being ordered back to the gate here. I'm not an expert in the field, but I do enjoy listening to United's channel 9 whenever available. Listening to this tape, it sounds like 202 is in the middle of taxiing to the runway for take-off. The ground controller informs him that he will be first in line to take off and hands him off to the tower controller handling takeoffs. The mental image I have is the plane is just about to reach the end of the runway to get final takeoff clearance. Instead the tower controller orders a left turn back to the gate. So how long before take off at that point? I'd say one minute tops, but more like 30 seconds away from rolling down the runway. But I think we could have ordered the plane to return if it was still in our territorial airspace. Plus flight plans from NY to Europe and the Middle East call for flight over Canadian airspace. Nevertheless, talk about cutting it close. And imagine the stench in this guy's pants when the plane turned away from the runway and headed back.
Someone from the Right really needs to explain the following contradictions to me:
Government is the problem. Therefore we can trust it to act as judge, jury, interrogator, and executioner.Of course, the political discourse has shifted so far to the right, that when a member of the House thinks that we should ignore 200+ years of constitutional rights that originated from a fight against executive abuses, well no one really bats an eye. WTF? Either we're all being sensitized to abuses of power, or deep down we think it's ok when the suspect has a name that's hard to pronounce.
Obama was born in a third-world country. Therefore, the administration must act like one when it comes to crime and punishment.
The administration is turning this country socialist. Therefore, we must borrow every confession-inducing method described by Alexander Solzhenytsin, make undesirables "disappear," trample on the principle of an independent court system, etc. etc. etc.
UPDATE: Upon further reflection, I think it's a mistake on my part to focus on blowhard comments from King and McCain. The real story here is the successful inter-agency law enforcement efforts. Here are two posts from the VC on the topic: a) tracking the identity of Shahzad and b) nabbing him before departure.
UPDATE 2: You can listen to the ATC tape of Emirates Flight 202 being ordered back to the gate here. I'm not an expert in the field, but I do enjoy listening to United's channel 9 whenever available. Listening to this tape, it sounds like 202 is in the middle of taxiing to the runway for take-off. The ground controller informs him that he will be first in line to take off and hands him off to the tower controller handling takeoffs. The mental image I have is the plane is just about to reach the end of the runway to get final takeoff clearance. Instead the tower controller orders a left turn back to the gate. So how long before take off at that point? I'd say one minute tops, but more like 30 seconds away from rolling down the runway. But I think we could have ordered the plane to return if it was still in our territorial airspace. Plus flight plans from NY to Europe and the Middle East call for flight over Canadian airspace. Nevertheless, talk about cutting it close. And imagine the stench in this guy's pants when the plane turned away from the runway and headed back.
Labels: Rabid Conservatives
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 10:06 AM
28 Comments:
Solid post. Also, I've yet to see praise for the phenomenal work the FBI and international task force has done over the last 36 hours - nabbing the suspect minutes before he left the country and already hot on a lead for any overseas connection. I've been very impressed by the White Houses measured and non-inflammatory media response as well.
I think my update and your comment must have passed each other on the inter tubes. I agree. This is all about successful law enforcement handled by very professional men and women. Tip of the hat.
This is the one that drives me crazy:
Obama is turning the country into a socialist state ala Hitler's Germany . . . also, all brown people in Arizona must carry and produce papers on demand.
I think what this incident admirably demonstrates is the effectiveness of good old-fasioned policework in thwarting terroristic acts.
Carbolic,
I don't think that it demonstrates the effectiveness of the police in thwarting terrorist attacks. It demonstrates that the police are good at investigation and at apprehending the offenders.
There is a big difference between stopping an attack and punishing those who executed or planned it.
Any alums/non-finals students want to give a perspective on this?
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/shahzad-was-mirandized----after-being-questioned.php?ref=fpa
Would do it myself, but don't have the time/energy to research an unfamiliar area.
11:47--An excellent point. I misspoke (miswrote?) and stand corrected.
12:15,
My initial reaction to the mid-interview Mirandizing described in that article was, "WTF were they thinking?"
Is it true that the United States government does not have a clear policy on mirandizing terror suspects? Or is it true that they do have a policy and just can't manage to follow it?
It must be one or the other, because a mid-interview Mirandizing makes no sense from any perspective. This is a situation where you just cannot split the baby: persons accused of terrorist acts within the United States are entitled to all of their constitutional rights, or else they are not entitled to any of them. There is no such thing as a half-right for terrorist suspects, and it's silly to try inventing some middle ground on the fly. But that sees to be exactly what the FBI did by interrogating, then Mirandizing, then interrogating some more.
If this had been an ordinary citizen accused of an ordinary crime, statements made before he received his warning would violate the Fifth Amendment. Statements made after would also be inadmissible against him, because a court would likely hold them tainted by whatever he said pre-warning. There is no reason to go silent if you think you have already spilled the beans, and courts recognize this. If this had been a non-citizen accused of terrorist acts overseas, then the fruits of pre-Miranda interrogation would not have been objectionable because it did not violate the Constitution. How to classify this guy might be tricky, but what the constitution and Supreme Court have required is not, and I can think of no rational explanation for what happened here.
I just cannot believe we don't have a clear policy worked out on this. I mean, really?
Patrick, those were my thoughts exactly. Seems like the interviewing agent may have really screwed the pooch on this one. I didn't know if the "public safety exemption" mentioned in the TPM comments was something recognized by our courts or applicable in this situation. Seems that it's likely problematic though.
- 12:15
See New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984) and its progeny. There's also a pertinent ALR article, "What Circumstances Fall Within Public Safety Exception to General Requirement, Pursuant to or as Aid in Enforcement of Federal Constitution's Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, to Give Miranda Warnings Before Conducting Custodial Interrogation—post-Quarles Cases."
Someone on the Left needs to explain this contradiction to me: its unthinkable that constitutional protections would not attach to terrorists with the avowed intention of destroying our country, but its plainly obvious that it does not attach to core political speech paid for by US corporations.
Note that I personally think constitutional protections apply to both. But it's been my experience that many people of various political stripes often think that that which is constitutional is that with which they agree.
4:32, someone will reply to you "because corporations are not humans." I find that to be a distinction without a difference as far as the First Amendment is concerned, but then I also continue to maintain that my support for procedural due process, gay marriage, gun rights, abortion rights, and corporate speech rights, all stem from conservative and not liberal values. So I'm probably not the guy to ask.
I'm a little dense, so I don't quite follow what contradiction you're pointing to. Are you saying corporations get every single individual right enshrined int he constitution? If not, then there really is no contradiction. If yes, then were you as perturbed by the Thomson memorandum eviscerating a corporations right to 6th Amendment rights?
The analogy completely collapses when we consider each position's respective place in history. How could someone support both positions? Easy. They'd been the law of the land for a long time.
Uh grammar FAIL! on my part. I need a drink.
Well, the Sixth Amendment creates rights in individuals. The speech clauses of the First Amendment do not -- they're cast in terms of a restriction on Congress's power to legislate. That's a reason not to be perturbed by or see a contradiction in corporate rights under the First and Sixth Amendments.
Adopting the "respective places in history" approach causes more inconsistencies for lefties than it solves. It calls into question most of substantive due process and fundamental rights. My guess is that people who would support overruling Citizens United on a historical grounds would be really uncomfortable applying the same reasoning to Griswold or Gideon or Miranda or Mapp.
I'm actually encouraged by seeing (of all people) GLENN BECK arguing--against the drones on Fox & Friends--that U.S. citizens should be Mirandized regardless of their crimes.
It's great that Miranda rights, a controversial invention of the courts, have been so ingrained in our culture/legal system as a fundamental right.
I think the most interesting thing about recent efforts to thwart terrorist plots is the role average citizens have played. In both this attack and the attempted underwear bombing, vigilant citizens noticed something was up and took action. It seems that the greatest change to law enforcement and intelligence techniques, post-9/11, is simply the attack's effect on our collective consciousness. We saw what happened when this stuff was ignored, and now we know--to some extent--what to watch out for (bombs in planes and NY city, apparently).
Of course, in both cases, citizens' efforts were helped along by faulty explosives. Here's hoping the former can succeed without relying on the latter.
Dan's right. And it sort of makes sense - determined locals have the edge. Look at Vietnam and Afghanistan.
FWIW, United flight 93 was probably a (really heartbreaking) example of citizens successfully thwarting a well-executed attack.
Going to have to still chalk it up to police response time improving in NYC w/r/t events that resemble terrorist attacks.
You think that a smoking/sparking/exploding SUV parked in Times Square would have been ignored by NYers in 1997?
Regarding Armen's first contradiction, many on The Right(TM) see a difference between aggressive law enforcement and aggressive legislation. They trust the police, but not Congress.
Rep. Peter King is all tough on terrorism now that Obama is President. But here is what he said after Bush froze in the classroom on 9/11:
“…for all he knew there could have been 15 to 20 other attacks going on. He could have been targeted there in Florida.”
Yeah, no need to move your butt in that case.
Ron Schalow – author of “Bullshit Artist: The 9/11 Leadership Myth”
4:32 here.
Note I did not say that "Corporations have free speech rights," which as far as I can tell no court has actually said, but instead said what the Court has actually said, which is that speech paid for by corporations is constitutionally protected (The CU opinion went to great lengths to point out that the 1A protects speech, not speakers).
The contradiction is that in one context the argument is for strict application: in the left's view, there are no exceptions to the need to Mirandize, even in the case of terrorists who are set on destroying the US. In the other context, we should be able to make up exceptions because the Left does not like the speech involved, i.e because we think corporate speech in the context of elections is a bad policy choice (the same way mirandizing a terrorism subject may be a bad policy choice), we should then be able to outlaw it based on some made-up distinction (e.g., that corporations aren't people).
Both sides do it. The point is that a partisan approach to constitutional rulemaking results in contradictions, so I am not that surpruised by the contradictions in your post.
As for history: the Supreme Court has never said that corporate-paid speech is without 1A protection, and has regularly and consistently said that corporate-paid speech is protected. Even the case CU overruled, Austin, held that the restrictions on corporate-paid speech in the context of elections were justified because of a compelling state interest and a narrowly-tailored regulation. Thus, even the absolutely best case an anti-corporate-speech argument could rest its hat on assumes that the speech is protected but that the state may restrict it due to a compelling state interest. That certainly is not the "corporations aren't humans" and therefore are not entitled to speech protection argument.
Beetle: spoken like a liberal who doesn't understand conservatives.
I suspect I have more credibility on the beliefs of "conservatives" than an anonymous commenter, but by all means, enlighten us.
When the conservatives Armen is talking about say "I want the government out of my life," they mean that the government has no business telling them what they can eat, who they need to buy health insurance from, what kind of car they should drive, etc. They don't mean "if I go murder someone, the government should just leave me alone." The "contradiction" Armen sees isn't a contradiction at all, because "Government is the problem" is not actually the belief of most conservatives.
Well you're right. It's to blame government for everything except in the one area where we actually should be mistrusting government--crime and punishment.
What's more dangerous, the FDA food label or the power to detain a citizen without trial or access to counsel?
It depends on how much you trust the FDA. You can dismiss it with hyperbolic examples compared to a "food label," but the FDA also stands in the way of medical treatments that people are literally dying to use.
There are many people who take the view that the police not having the power to detain a citizen without trial or access to counsel is a far greater danger to liberty. I don't hold that opinion, but support for the idea of the unwilling sacrifice of some for the greater good is not particularly partisan. There's just a disagreement about what needs to be sacrificed for what.
Why do you think people should be especially mistrustful of government in issues of crime and punishment? By nature, crime punishment has to be done through a government, or else it's vigilantism all the way. The fact that we believe a government system should handle crime and punishment at all is already an enormous step of trust, but it's one conservatives (and liberals) accept because the alternative is far worse and more arbitrary and unfair.
Compare that with the view that the government is responsible for, say, your personal health. The conservative bristles at this because, at least at a first order of approximation, there's no reason why each person can't be responsible for her own health. Government being responsible in this area is an act of increased control by the government over individuals, but unlike in the case for the criminal justice system, conservatives see this exercise of control as unjustified, because a reasonable alternative exists.
Of course, none of these are so black-and-white straightforward, but that's why different people have different opinions.
You see a contradiction, but you're talking about issues of scale. Conservatives see apples and oranges, but it all just looks like fruit to you. There's nothing wrong with your point of view, but just because you see a contradiction doesn't mean that conservatives are hypocrites because they don't.
Beetle,
That was really well written and well thought out. Please post more often.
Something I figured out recently after reading a Charles Krauthammer column: the contradictions you describe are only contradictions if you believe that Shahzad was (allegedly) engaged in a criminal act. But people on the right like Rep. King or Sen. McCain don't believe that (or at least say they don't); they say he was acting as an enemy combatant on behalf of Al Qaeda, which is our opponent in the Global War on Terrorism.
So this is how you can square away what appear to liberals to be contradictions. When Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolph and other white non-Muslims engage in terrorism, it's merely a crime. It's not part of any war -- regardless of how McVeigh, Rudolph and the other white crazies might perceive themselves, as quite a few DO think they're at war.
In contrast, if you got your weapons training with brown/black people instead of with Terry Nichols, you're an enemy combatant in a war and the various protections that apply to the criminally accused are irrelevant for you.
Post a Comment
<< Home