Glenn Beck vehemently defends mirandizing suspected Times Square bomber on Fox and Friends

Glenn Beck and Brian Kilmeade go round and round on Fox and Friends this morning on whether to mirandize Faisal Shahzad, suspected Times Square bomber arrested last night before boarding an international flight. Kilmeade argues that Shahzad may know of other plots that threaten American citizens and therefore he should be interrogated for a few days before mirandizing him, but Beck counters back that he’s an American citizen and we can’t just ‘shred the constitution’ because it’s convenient. Beck concedes that if we are at war, then different rules may be applied, but it must be a declared war.

I agree that the Constitution must be applied here and we must treat Shahzad like an American citizen. Also the Judge makes a great point that anything learned from interrogation, prior to mirandizing Shahzad, would not be admissible in court as it would be considered a violation of Shahzad’s rights.

What do you think?

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • Pingback: Hot Air » Beck: Of course Shahzad should get Mirandized!()

  • Pingback: John McCain: It would be a mistake to mirandize suspected Times Square bomber- The Right Scoop()

  • Pingback: Shazad Should Get Mirandized (Video) | Lee Hernly()

  • KeninMontana

    As much as I would like to insert bamboo under the guys fingernails for several hours, I agree with Beck. The suspect is a US citizen and therefore entitled to his rights under US law and the Constitution.If you take his rights away what is to stop it from happening to any of us? Although I think it is reasonable to charge him with treason on top of any other charges filed.

  • KeninMontana

    If guilty he should be given the maximum penalty under the law as well.

  • Tyler

    I'm glad you folks at least have some common sense and I'm particularly glad that there are some Libertarians at Fox News. My old man and I had a conversation about this last night and it basically came down to HE would be willing to give up some of his civil rights for SAFETY where I WOULDN'T.

  • Tyler

    It's sad that we even have to make these arguments though. “It could be your friends and family next,” being the same kind of rhetoric they used to pass the Patriot Act.

    Did the Patriot Act make us any more safe? Of course not. The ONLY potential argument for better security would be that the guys at the airport stepped up their game a lot more, but that's the TSA and has nothing to do with the “Now The President Can Spy On You” bill.

    Allowing the government to destroy our rights just for safety isn't going to make us any more safe and the reason is very simple.

    Homeland Security is too bureaucratic of a system. Layers upon layers and multiple departments within it will delay any potential action even if you DO somehow find out about a plot over a phone call you listen in on.

    I'd like my PRIVACY back, please…and I'd also like to know that if I was suspected of a terrorist act that I would have a RIGHT TO TRIAL first because a guy like me…WOULDN'T BE GUILTY therefore shouldn't have my rights shredded just because I matched a description.

  • williamm

    I'm happy to see beck standing by the constitution he is always talking about. It would be great if Obama did.

  • If he were treated any differently, that would give the government the precedence to treat any American citizen, whether a suspected terrorist or not, like some kind of “enemy combatant”, and that's dangerous.

  • thomwalker

    It is the “Rule of Law” that needs to be followed. He is an American citizen. Although I'd like to see him water boarded (at least) and maybe more, we need to follow the Constitution.

  • KeninMontana

    I really dislike the term “Homeland” , it just gives me the willys. Probably because it's a little too similar to “Motherland”(USSR) or “Fatherland” (Nazi Germany). Just saying…….

  • josephaj

    you write “Also the Judge makes a great point that anything learned from interrogation, prior to mirandizing Shahzad, would not be admissible in court as it would be considered a violation of Shahzad’s rights.”

    but the purpose of not mirandizing him wouldn't be to get information admissible in court!!! the purpose is to get intelligence war intelligence that is, who are his associates specifically foreign non citizen associates…
    am i missing something here?

    Beck and the judge might still be right that we cannot violate his citizen rights, but to the specific point above i think you missed it…

    its possible that we can interrogate him without miranda rights for that purpose and then give him his rights for which everything in a court trial would be subject to what happened after that?
    im asking…

  • williamm

    They can question him under the public safety exception, but I don't know if anything he says can be used against him until he's mirandized.

  • Tyler

    That is a pretty good question. The 5th Amendment just states that you don't have to incriminate yourself, but it doesn't guarantee protection if someone DOES incriminate themselves.

  • I didn't miss that point Joseph, I just didn't state it. From the standpoint of getting information and using it against him, he must be mirandized. I understand the point of trying to get info to prevent another attack and that's quite valid, as long as his rights aren't pushed aside. If it's legal and he admits it, I've got no problem.

  • IMO he is CORRECT-He IS a citizen and BTW, as near as MY research tells me, the Bill of Rights does NOT discriminate between citizens and non-citizens. Regardless, that is a strawman-This guy IS a citizen. Now they could have DELAYED reading him his rights under the Public Safety Act” but they would have to defend that delay.

  • Under the “Public Safety act” they CAN delay Mirandizing the suspect but I'm NOT sure if that would matter. Until we can define “torture” then it's all moot anyway.