Faisal Shahzad Admits To Time Square Bombing Attempt

Faisal Shahzad Admits To Time Square Bombing Attempt


And he says that he acted alone.

We shall see…

From Reuter:

“He’s admitted to buying the truck, putting the devices together, putting them in the truck, leaving the truck there and leaving the scene,” the law enforcement source told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“He’s claimed to have acted alone. He did admit to all the charges, so to speak,” the source said, adding that investigators were still looking into his activities during a recent trip to Pakistan.

If links were found between the failed Times Square bombing and Pakistan’s Taliban, which claimed responsibility for it, Pakistan could come under renewed U.S. pressure to open risky new fronts against Islamic militants.

Meanwhile, some conservatives are balking at reading an American citizen his Miranda rights?

– “I think obviously that [mirandizing Shahzad] would be a serious mistake until we’ve — at least until we find out as much information as we have, and there are ways — legal ways — of delaying that.” — Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)

– “I hope that [Attorney General Eric] Holder did discuss this with the intelligence community. If they believe they got enough from him, how much more should they get? Did they Mirandize him? I know he’s an American citizen but still.” — Rep. Peter King (R-NY)

John McCain? Mr. Habeas Corpus himself? Seriously?

Even Joe Lieberman is getting in on the “no miranda” act…

I think it’s time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship, and therefore be deprived of rights that come with that citizenship when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist act.

So how exactly would we be able to determine that an American citizen’s rights be revoked before we know whether or not they did what they’re accused of?

Oh those pesky rights!

Oddly enough, Glenn Beck and I see eye to eye on this one…

Beck added, “He’s a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens.” When Fox and Friends host Brian Kilmeade interjected, “But he’s a threat to the country. That’s different,” Beck responded, “So are a lot of citizens of the country. … We don’t shred the Constitution when it’s popular.”

“So are a lot of citizens of this country.”

I never thought I’d say this, but thank you Glenn Beck!

More as it develops…

  • http://centristcoalition.com/blog/ kranky kritter

    Can a lawyer out there clear this up for us?

    My understanding is that if you are arrested, then you get read your Miranda rights, which you enjoy as a citizen as it applies to being tried in criminal court.

    But if you get classified as an enemy combatant then you become subject to whatever rules apply under that system. In other words, your Miranda rights for being tried in criminal court are moot if you aren’t in fact being tried within that system.

    Is that wrong?

  • Kevin

    Wow, I agree with Glenn Beck! And there goes a pig overhead… This nonsense about ignoring Miranda rights when we think someone might be a terrorist is really stupid. I mean, mind bogglingly stupid.

    Terrorism is simply another crime. There is no difference for law enforcement or the courts between a mafia hit man who sets a car bomb and a terrorist who sets a car bomb. Both have the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the right to be convicted by a jury and rot in prison for the rest of their lives. It’s really that simple. Collect evidence, present it in court, and send them to jail.

    We have a reasonably good system in place for that. Our courts aren’t perfect (in fact they are very flawed at times) but stripping Constitutional rights is not the way to fix them.

  • http://theapathyremedy.org SpkTruth2Pwr

    O wow. Are you SURE Glenn Beck said this??? Is it really possible that he has somehow summed up entirely the sentiments that I felt when I read about some GOP complaints about Miranda rights????


  • WHQ

    The constitution guarantees some (most, really) rights to “people” and “persons.” Other rights are guaranteed to “citizens,” like the rights to vote, hold office and live in the US for as long as you like. It seems pretty clear that the ones guaranteed to “people” and “persons” apply to citizens and non-citizens alike, at least when they’re on US soil. US citizens, I assume, get a (partial, at least) constitutional bubble around them wherever they go, but not non-citizens.

    There are some public-safety and national-security exceptions specifically to Miranda, but I think those simply apply to being read those rights, not to the rights themselves. Either way, the immediate threat being eliminated, those exceptions wouldn’t apply. But what Miranda is all about is being informed of your rights. Informed or not, you still have them. The being informed simply makes it harder for your testimony to be rendered inadmissable as evidence in court based on your being at least tricked, if not coerced, into incriminating yourself unwittingly.

    What any of this has to do with anything in this case, I don’t know. It think John McCain and Joe Lieberman just think it makes them sound tough to advocate not reading accused terrorist their rights. It’s horsecrap, AFAICT.

  • Nick Benjamin

    What’s happened with Miranda Rights is that they’ve become shorthand for a group of issues. By saying he doesn’t want Shahzad Mirandized McCain is implying he wants Shahzad locked up in GitMo, waiting for a military tribunal. He does not want Shahzad in the civilian court system. It doesn’t make much sense (I sincerely doubt any Military Tribunal would care an MP told a suspect he “has the right to remain silent”), but in a sound-byte culture this sort of thing is common.

    I strongly disagree with him on that issue. Especially when a US Citizen is involved it is, by definition, impossible to use military justice. You have to use civilian courts. This doe not mean you have to go easy on Shahzad, BTW. He was “making war on the United States,” which is treason. That’s a bit more important then terrorism.

  • http://centristcoalition.com/blog/ kranky kritter

    Yeah, I think it’s a shame that the parties have discovered this button-pushing issue of civilian court versus military tribunals. And I think it reflects poorly on us as the public that so many of us think you can’t be serious about terrorism unless you go the gitmo/tribunal route.

    This is very similar to the whole “tough on crime” vibe that conservatives play upon. What is really irritating is this moronic game where two politicians or two parties try to show that THEY are the ones who are more in favor of (or more against) some thing that no one really disagrees about. No one is pro-crime or pro-terrorism or anti-education, etc., etc.