Kinsely: WHY are we reading Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights?

[bik0]

makes some good points...

Republican critics like Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich have raised these questions in the past few days. There's a gruesome anomaly here, to be sure: the United States government will blow you to smithereens and consider it a good day's work if you're a Qaeda member dreaming of jihadist glory while residing somewhere outside the United States, but will pay for your lawyer if you get caught in the act within our borders. But this anomaly didn't arise with the Obama administration. It is built into our dual role as a liberal democracy and as a legitimately aggrieved superpower.

The charms of liberal democracy sometimes need to be defended by war, and Mr. Obama's critics are right that war can't be conducted with a high level of concern for individual justice. A liberal democracy aspires to punish only the guilty. But war is inherently unfair — it distributes suffering arbitrarily among enemy combatants, civilians and one's own soldiers. A line has to be drawn somewhere to determine which of these utterly different standards of government behavior is applied where — and the nation's border is as good a line as any.

Members of Al Qaeda are not the only ones affected by this double standard. The most repulsive and obviously guilty child molester — or drug kingpin who may also have information that the government could use — gets American justice, while an innocent child killed accidentally in our pursuit of terrorists gets no justice at all. (This second part of the equation doesn't seem to bother the Cheneys and the Gingriches.) Any place you draw the line, it will be possible to come up with what lawyers call "a parade of horribles." Any line you draw can be made to seem absurd, because it is absurd. But the line must be drawn somewhere.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?id=3181&letter_id=4488227911

[mrcheerful]

1. All I have to say is thank god * isn't in office he probably would have invaded Japan

for the under pants bomber.

[madrchsod]

2. that sums up why the american justice system is still respected around the world

it`s not perfect but it`s still one of the best

[bik0]

4. A possible flaw I see in his logic is that a foriegn invasion on U.S. soil

would result in captured combatants being prosecuted in civilian courts because they were captured "over the line" on U.S. soil. Shouldn't there be a distinction between child molesters, murderers etc. who are U.S. citizens vs. non-U.S. citizens who belong to, are affiliated with, or instructed by a foreign country, entity or organization who's sole objective is to destroy the U.S.?

What difference is there between an enemy combatant who lands on a beach on a landing craft with thousands of soldiers vs. an invasion of one who flies into Detroit alone? They are both of the same mindset - they've declared war on the U.S., they're both part of a larger entity who's mission is to defeat the U.S.

The combatant on the beach is looking for a quick defeat whereas the terrorist on the plane is more in a "death by a thousand cuts" mode. Other than that I'm not sure I see a difference.

[blondeatlast]

6. It's a bit of a dilemma. Perhaps the UN, world Court, etc. could

outline a sort of "terrorism" Geneva Convention.

It's not actually war, but it is more than a lone criminal and the stated purpose is to do harm to the nation. Tough call.

[Mz Pip]

3. I don't know why that

is such a big deal for people get in a fuss about. We do it all the time. Non-citizens who commit violent crimes are subject to our justice system and for the most part it works just fine.

[blondeatlast]

5. It's amazing how many people don't seem to get that anyone on US soil is

subject to the Constitution.

I, for one, have no problem whatsoever with the notion.

[bik0]

7. So if we were invaded by a Russia we would read Miranda rights to all captured soldiers

and assign public defenders and prosecute them in civilian court? Are you serious?

[blondeatlast]

9. Read my post above for clarification.

I make a distinction, just as you do, of those acting in the interest of a group with a stated purpose of destroying the US--but not an official state--and an individual.

[bik0]

12. Wouldn't Mutallab fall into that category?

"acting in the interest of a group with a stated purpose of destroying the US"

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. No, and if you don't see the difference, then there's no hope for you

You need to go live in a dictatorship, because you'd be the perfect subject for some tinhorn dictator.

[blondeatlast]

42. Yes, but until we have a some way of isolating that, we're stuck with damn Constitution.

And that works for me.

[Caliman73]

58. No he would not.

He is a criminal committing the criminal act of terrorism. We are not formally at war with anyone. The stupid term "War on Terror" is semantic masturbation used to scare and enrage gullible people, just like the "War on Drugs" and "War on Christmas". The term "war" is used to evoke an emotional response and a loosening of ethics for operations against perceived enemies. Make no mistake, there are enemies out there, but they are not entities with which we are at war, therefore they are criminals. When we catch foreign nationals spying for foreign governments, they are not treated as enemy combatants. They are treated as criminals and tried in civilian courts for espionage. If we are invaded by the military of another nation, and capture those soldiers, then we can try them according to the UCOMJ and the Geneva Conventions. Until then, our civilian courts have been good enough to deal with the most heinous criminals in our history, they can deal with incompetents like Mutallab as well.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

11. Because a lone nut who is a legend in his own mind is not the same as a soldier of an actual country

You've swallowed the whole bogus Bush propaganda line about the "War on Terror."

I suggest seeing the BBC film "The Power of Nightmares." It's available on Netflix and perhaps even on YouTube.

Whether you believe all of it or not, it raises some questions about the whole "national security" issue.

But before you do that, read up on the Constitution.

[bik0]

13. He wasn't a "lone nut" - someone with sophisticated explosives training rigged his undies

It's obvious he was part of an organized group.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. Big deal--he's still not a soldier of an actual country

He's a member of a criminal gang like the Mafia. Terrorists aren't some superhuman monsters. They're criminals and should be treated as such.

That's how European countries treat terrorists, as common criminals, and they have a better record of catching them than we do because they realize that bombing an unrelated country to fight terrorists is as stupid as bombing New Jersey to catch the Mafia.

Don't let media hysteria about "terrorism" turn you into a fascist.

The FACTS are that you have no greater chance of dying in a terrorist attack than you do of dying in an ordinary plane crash. Getting into your car and driving on the freeway is more dangerous than flying, with or without terrorists.

[bik0]

22. The Mafia is in it for the money - they are not out to destroy the U.S.

Big difference.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. What are you, 15 years old?

Because you argue like a teenager (or a right-winger).

[bik0]

40. This is a good discussion - no need for personal attacks.

Why the disrespect?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. Because people have explained things to you over and over

and you're still repeating what sound like right-wing talking points.

[bik0]

48. Does belittling me make your argument more valid?

I have no idea what the RW talking points are. I'm looking at this from a conceptual point of view. I'm looking for an honest exchange of ideas - that's how we learn. Talking down to someone adds nothing.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. Her arguments are more valid than yours, yes.

"I have no idea what the RW talking points are."

We don't believe you.

"I'm looking at this from a conceptual point of view."

No, you're not.

"I'm looking for an honest exchange of ideas."

We don't believe that either.

"Talking down to someone adds nothing."

Sometimes talking down to someone is what people deserve. You want people to get what they deserve, don't you?

[bik0]

61. We? Do you speak for everyone?

Governments, laws, rights and organizations are generally agreed upon conceptual entities that exist in the collective consciousness of groups of people. There is not really an actual line that delineates the U.S. from Mexico and Canada. The line is only a symbol in thought - in the minds of the collective consciousness. When Kinsley makes the point that once a person crosses the line into U.S. territory he is afforded the same rights as an ordinary citizen regardless of their intent or the organization they are affiliated with, he is describing his concept of government, law and the rights of an individual. These concepts are not black and white and because their symbolic in nature, they are subject to interpretation. That's why we have courts.

I originally agreed with Kinsley, his points made sense but then I started to think. By his logic, any foreign invader would be afforded the same treatment. He didn't address that issue...

"Any place you draw the line, it will be possible to come up with what lawyers call "a parade of horribles." Any line you draw can be made to seem absurd, because it is absurd. But the line must be drawn somewhere.

So why not draw the line to put an Abdulmutallab or a Shaikh Mohammed on the "war" side and treat him as an enemy combatant? Well, first, recognize that this has become a judgment call so the answer is no longer obvious or mandated by logic. Second, recognize that the national border is a "bright line," and if people captured within the United States are going to be treated as if they were somewhere else — provided that they are certified terrorists — things are going to get complicated quickly. "


If belittling me is what you believe I deserve then so be it. I make no judgments about you. Peace.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. Russia is a country--Al Qaeda (if it even exists) is not

(sigh)

We have ourselves another right-wing propaganda victim.

[PVnRT]

26. Find me a law that says invading the US is a criminal act

Then we can start discussing how prisoners of war would be treated under criminal law.

Until then, your analogy is meaningless.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. Right--sabotage is a criminal act

War (REAL war, not bogus war) is different.

We don't prosecute soldiers for murder if they kill another soldier in combat. We even overlook deaths of civilians except in extreme cases.

[blogslut]

34. Invaded by Russia?

Really?

What is this, the eighties?

The problem is that the previous administration rounded up people like it was the second act of Anyone Can Whistle. Instead of taking the time to interrogate them properly they decided to invent some bogus category of war criminal that conveniently wasn't defined within the Geneva Conventions. They piled them in prison camps and sent others off to rendition for (IMHO) the purpose of terrifying the shit out of everyone with their badassness. They tortured some in order to get them to give false confessions of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 and the rest they fully intended to keep imprisoned without trial or tribunal - forever.

Now that GW's war criminal crew are out of office, we have clean up the total shitload they left behind. One of the ways we are doing that is by bringing out good, old-fashioned American Civil rights. For all intents and purposes, Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab is the very symbol of the kind of person Cheney's minions would have renditioned, tortured and probably killed. If Obama does that then he's truly no better than Dubya - and America pays the price.

[bik0]

53. Bad example on my part but hopefully you get my point.

Leave the torture part out - I agree. But lawful interrogation without Miranda - yes like any other foreign invader. Didn't Obama sign an anti-torture law last year?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. If we were invaded by Russia...

captured Russian soldiers would be treated as prisoners of war, sent to a prison camp that was regularly inspected by the International Red Cross, and then repatrioted once the war is over.

I guess they're showing to much of The Hunt for Hitler's Ghost on the history channel these days as opposed to actual history.

[bik0]

50. deleted

[treestar]

51. No

Obviously not.

Terrorists are more akin to criminals than soldiers, no matter how they label themselves.

[Iggo]

8. Because he has Miranda rights and it's the law.

Damn. That was easy.

[DefenseLawyer]

10. If you make an exception to due process for "terrorists"

then anyone that the government doesn't feel deserves due process will be labeled a "terrorist".

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. That's how it worked in Argentina and Uruguay when their

"war on domestic terror" turned into a war on their own people. Thirty thousand Argentinians were "disappeared" and tortured and murdered by their own government, supposedly to catch terrorists who had killed about twenty people. Since Argentina has about 1/10 the population of the United States, it's as if 300,000 Americans were grabbed off the streets or out of their own homes by the police and FBI and never seen again.

By the way, Argentina and Uruguay were no banana republics but two of the best educated and prosperous societies in Latin America. It's so easy to slide into dictatorship. All you need is a scared population.

While I understand the frustration over "coddling criminals," as the right-wingers like to say, it is worth having defense lawyers to make sure that the cops and courts have to prove their case before punishing anyone.

[bik0]

20. I agree that this should not apply to U.S. citizens - only foreigners

whether they're in uniform and part of an invasion force or alone on an airplane in civilian clothes. It's the citizenship, who they're working for and the mission statement of who they're working for that sets them apart.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

23. They're still human beings--and you need to turn off the TV and read up on

the whole bogus "war on terror."

I strongly suspect that this was a false flag operation or a LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) operation. How else could someone with so many warnings about him board a plane?

Also, when it comes to human rights and the judicial system, it's downright DANGEROUS to differentiate between citizens and non-citizens. Human beings are still human beings. If we gave Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy (notorious and obvious serial killers, if you're too young to remember) normal trials, then we can certainly do the same for someone who DIDN'T blow up a plane.

[DefenseLawyer]

25. If you are arrested this morning

put in a cell, not allowed to contact anyone, not allowed an attorney and not given any of the rights afforded the accused, could you prove you were a U.S. citizen? And if you could, who would you prove it to? The guys that put you in the cell to begin with?

[treestar]

54. Agreed, too many people think it is so easy to distinguish citizens

of the U.S. which is hilarious considering how diverse the U.S. population is.

Once the government has that kind of power, it only has to claim you are not a citizen.

[PVnRT]

28. I see

No U.S. citizens have ever been terrorists, of course. Only those evil A-rabs.

[bik0]

16. There would have to be distinct and clear criteria

A foreigner, working in the interest of a group, organization or entity who's mission is to destroy the U.S.

Of course there's always a possibility for abuse as with any law.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. Admit it--the media hysteria has turned you into a scaredy-cat

That's how dictators come to power. They scare people into giving up their freedom.

[DefenseLawyer]

21. Who decides if a suspect fits the "criteria"?

And if meeting the criteria means the suspect has no due process rights and can be whisked away to a hole somewhere, how would we ever know who had received this "special" treatment? You have more faith in the essential fairness of authority than I.

[bik0]

29. You don't trust ANY authority?

Are you an anarchist? If we lose trust then we don't have a society or civilization for that matter. Every system has abuses - just because it's imperfect doesn't mean we abandon it all together.

[DefenseLawyer]

32. Abandon it?

I want to keep the Constitution and the protections it provides. You appear to be the one advocating that we abandon it.

[bik0]

35. Where does it say in the constitution that foreign invaders bent on the

destruction of the U.S. should be treated as criminals and prosecuted in civilian court?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. DUH!

Wars are between countries, not between criminal gangs and countries.

EDUCATE YOURSELF before you go around treating Michael Kinsley as gospel.

[bik0]

38. You obviously didn't read the article

"EDUCATE YOURSELF before you go around treating Michael Kinsley as gospel."

[DefenseLawyer]

39. Read the Bill of Rights

If the government wants to prosecute someone in this country there are rules. This isn't Nam, Smokey. There is no exception in the 4th, 5th, 6th or 8th Amendments that says "unless someone in authority decides these rights don't apply". I will go back to my original point once more and then I will be done. When you can take away basic rights based upon how a suspect is defined by the people who are trying to take away those rights in the first place, it means everyone's rights will be at the discretion of the authorities.

[bik0]

49. I find it interesting that the OP has more unrecs than recs even though

most everyone here agrees with Kinsley. That tells me most people didn't even read his letter.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. No, frankly, no one should TRUST any authority

That's why we have a Constitution, to place limits on what authority can legally do.

Everyone in authority, from the traffic cop who pretends that you were going over the speed limit, to the president who tries to sabotage his opponent's election prospects, is prone to the temptation to overreach.

It may be irritating to the cops when neighbors gather round and protest an arrest, but in his book The Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn wonders how far Stalin would have gotten if ordinary Russians had come to the defense of neighbors who were being dragged away by the secret police.

[Mz Pip]

43. You've just proved the whole point

of following the laws we now have. why should we abandon a system that is the best in the world because someone is afraid that some terrorist might have the same rights as anyone else who is arrested on our shores? Why go through some complex and convoluted attempt to change the rules for a handful of people?

Are you afraid the system won't work? What really are you afraid of here?

We've been prosecuting really bad people and they go to prison and the don't get out. Our prisons are filled with thugs that have gone through our criminal justice system. This guy will just be one more to add to the list.

[bik0]

44. I know Mutallab will have his day in court and the system will work

He will get justice. That's not what I'm concerned about. But... if he is treated like any other foreign invader there may be intelligence information that can be attained by lawful interrogation - WITHOUT TORTURE. It may save lives if the terrorist's act is part of a larger plot. It's known that Al Qaeda's modus operandi is to strike with coordinated attacks. Unfortunately under Bush the CIA f'd up and broke the law so nobody trusts the CIA. Everyone believes any interrogation without a lawyer present will end up in torture. I get it. Didn't Obama sign a law this year outlawing torture?

What I don't get is how a foreign Al Qaeda operative is treated like a a common criminal who is a U.S. citizen. Common criminals are a-political and have no interest in the destruction of an entire country. I still don't see how they are the same and should be treated the same.

I see similarities with Al Queda and a foreign army. Al Qaeda has a hierarchical structure with soldiers and lieutenants. Members are subject to a ranking system. They have rules and laws within their organization. They hold territory within the lawless regions of unstable countries. If they could overthrow a foreign government like Somalia or Yemen they would. That is the only thing holding them back from being an actual country/foreign government. Their actions and threats have inflicted tremendous changes in American society and behavior. They have declared war on the U.S. We wouldn't give Miranda rights to foreign invaders who landed on our shores in military uniform with the intent to destroy the U.S.

Al Qaeda has more in common with a foreign invader than a common criminal, Mafia or a drug gang IMO.

[immoderate]

57. Silly. Al Qaeda would occupy and govern US?

If you look more carefully, you might see that it's more like a gang. In fact, it is a gang. It's not a government or a sovereign country. It's a gang of criminals.

--imm

[bik0]

59. Right - it is silly.

But what do you believe their ultimate goal is? Their attacks on the U.S. are meant to increase pressure on the U.S. to withdraw troops from all Muslim countries in the Middle East. Something I'm actually in favor of but not at the cost of some Taliban type taking over. I have no love for the Saudi's - they're one of the most corrupt countries on the planet - but they would really love to overthrow Saudi Arabia and set up a Taliban like state that's more like a 14th century society. They would then use oil as a strategic weapon to weaken the U.S. further. Ultimately (not in our lifetime) I believe they would love to see the U.S. eventually become a Muslim country - I know it's nuts but that's how crazy they are.

[immoderate]

60. I agree that they are crazy.

And they want to do the things that you mentioned. But they are still a gang, not a country or a government. Destroying countries, killing civilians, and denying civil rights will not lead to victory.

--imm

[treestar]

55. the u.s. has three branches

the executive cannot have unchallenged authority - that's the very thing that makes it different.

Committing anything solely to one branch is dangerous, but especially to the executive branch. There has to be a way to challenge their decisions, or they can make them untrammeled by the law. They can just label someone a "noncitizen" or whatever. Once anyone has no right to challenge them, no one does.

[BlueMTexpat]

33. Egg-zactly!

In fact, there are some Republicans who are already saying that "the left" and "liberals" are terrorists.

The OP either doesn't "get" it or is deliberately trying to provoke. EOM

[HughMoran]

15. WHY do we have such a respected judicial system and WHY don't we just ignore our Constitution?

WHY?

[TexasObserver]

31. Why? Because he committed crimes, and we will prosecute him for it.

If we want to use his statements against him, if we want to use evidence uncovered by his statements, we had to Mirandize him.

This is more nonsense from the "torture first" crowd. They cannot fathom that these guys are tragic figures who are not strong, but very, very weak and emotionally fragile. The experts at getting information from them say it has to be done by getting them to talk without beating it out of them. If you torture them, they will concoct any story your beating them leads them to produce. This is why the morons who torture prisoners get ridiculous confessions, like those of KLM.

You could make any American admit the same things in 72 hours of torture, or less. Probably 72 seconds in most cases.

[The Green Manalishi]

63. Exactly

The simple, verifiable fact is that non coercive, psychology based interrogation yields much better results than the most heinous forms of torture.

[The Green Manalishi]

64. Exactly

The simple, verifiable fact is that non coercive, psychology based interrogation yields much better results than the most heinous forms of torture.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. So you're saying that you want terrorists to go free instead of receiving justice?

Takes all kind I guess.

[tekisui]

47. Because we should if we want to rightly convict.

[treestar]

56. When we repudiated Bush/Cheney and the neocon cabal, we

repudiated this idea. The Founders never meant for there to be classes of people who were entitled to justice while others weren't. That would make a "noble" sort of class, entitled to a higher class of justice than others. That is antithetical to the entire basis of this nation.

[Truth2Tell]

62. he lost me at "legitimately aggrieved superpower"

what a dumb ass post