There seems to be an issue as to who made the decision to give the Christmas Day Panty Bomber his Miranda rights and whether more information could have been obtained.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/On-bombing-suspect_-tough-questions-for-Eric-Holder-82305397.html
Now, to be clear, like Obama and Nixon say, I am NOT starting a debate on whether he should have been given those rights.
My question is if it was the right decision, why doesn't the person who made it stand up and say, "Yes. I did that. Here is why."
If it was the right thing to do, Holder should go on television on the Sunday morning shows and say that either he or someone in his organization made the decision, it was the right one, and if you have any questions, I will take them now.
If they are right, let them defend it.
Byron York ain't, and he's just posing rhetorical questions with a political end in mind.
The crotch bomber, confused guy that he appears to be, was arrested in the USA on criminal charged. Reading him his Miranda rights is simply SOP, with probably no thought given to the possiblity that he might be charged as an enemy combatant [sure he is] and useful intelligence gleamed from him [sure it would].
No doubt when a defense of the decision is offerred, you will criticize it.
Because you missed the point of my post. I was not debating the merits, which is what you seem to be doing - why he was given Miranda.
The question is someone made this decision. Why don't they stand up and justify it? Hey, if Holder just gets up and says, "He got Miranda because it is SOP," that would answer my question.
Since you raise a side issue, I will address it: You are right that "no thought [was] given to the possibility that he might be charged as an enemy combatant....." although you seem to think he is and he possesses useful information.
This is almost my point. Why was "no thought given" to this issue? He almost killed 300 people. A little thought is not too much to ask for. If he has useful information, shouldn't this be something someone thinks about.
Finally - and here is great legal analysis - Yes, normally Miranda rights are SOP. However, the law recognizes that not everything fits into SOP. Likewise, the law recognizes that there are often exceptional and/or exigent circumstances that may justify departing from SOP.
Given the wide-spread recognition that SOP is "Standard" because it fits "most" situations," saying it is SOP treats this guy like a shop lifter. You regularly give shop lifters Miranda. I don't think this guy is SOP material.
bareback gave you the/his answer, you seem ill-disposed to accept it, flawed as it might be. You merely reiterate your own, and york's, tendentious point.
1. SOP upon the time of arrest
2. you are free to disagree that crotchbomber fits SOP. That being so, try to obtain a position in the federal gov't where you can make these decisions, if not live out some potential Jack Bauer you may be harboring. Though they MAY have been wrong in this instance [but i doubt it] i'm more willing to trust the decisions of the authorities on the scene rather than your silly second-guessing. They actually have experience and presumably know what they're doing. You, on the other hand, have about as much experience as Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm re these issues.
3. it's not obvious that bareback considers crotchbomber to possess intelligence about anything terrorist-related. you may have misread him.
and Rebecca of Sunnybrook farm have to do with interrogation techniques of Al Qaida TERRORISTs? Disagree with DNCPHil all you want, but one thing I would not question is his knowledge of criminal justice system. I also respect his intelligent and rational responses.
I am free to critique dncphil's contributions when I feel they are weak, as i felt this particular one was.
Jack Bauer and Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm are just snide asides. Alas, wasted on you. dncphil appears to have little faith in, or use for, the profession he's chosen. And that's a real pity.
I doubt he knows much about interrogating terrorists - real, imagined, or merely suspected. I doubt dncphil knows more than the authorities on the spot either. But that doesn't deter him from making a fool of himself.
He does do a great job, real yeoman work, posing semi-plausible rhetorical questions. He fills his ecological niche in this environment perfectly.
If I was going to post something so completely unresponsive to Phil’s post, so entirely erroneous in content, and so devoid of any substance other than ad hominem comments as you guys did, I would post under an alias as well.
Yes, I sure wouldn’t want to be connected with any of those posts.
But if you if have a critique as to what he actually posted, please share.
the Constitution made that decision Phil. The Supreme Court made that decision.
Phil might as well be saying here that: Little Phillip used to shop lift all the time at the local convenience store, but now that little Phillip is gone, little Johnny goes into the convenience store and doesn't shop lift at all. What's wrong with little Johnny? Why doesn't he justify his not breaking the law?
You're a lawyer Phil? Riiight.
assuming that he isa defense attorney [LOL].
f he's a prosecutor, there must be a lot of almost felons walking free and plying their nefarious trades thanks to phil's legal ineptitude.
approach to terrorism that you so champion. It is standard operating procedure for law enforcement to give criminal suspects Miranda rights upon custodial interrogation.
But your article would suggest that there is no SOP with respect to persons charged with crimes of terror - that is why it was necessary for the ground agents to consult with DOJ to decide what to do.
If there was SOP for this guy, it obviously had not been properly communicated to the arresting agents.
Still think ad hoc is a good idea?
Take this issue as just one of dozens that have occurred within the OB administration. They don't answer because to do so would simply validate the fact that everything they are about is couched in political poppy-cock and complete ignorance of common sense.
Miranda for combatants.
Bribary to get votes.
Two years of lies in OB's campaign.
One year of lies since his election.
And their answer to events in Boston is to conduct yet another campaign style set of speaches expousing the same bullshit that was just rejected by the folks.
Can you name any President in history that has told more lies to the public than OB? We've had some bad decisions by some in the past, but outright lies to the extent of OB's record? Trying to apply some form of serious logic to why they do what they do is like trying to install a screen door on a submarine.