Skip to comments.Obama making same mistake; Richard Reid should have been tried by military commission
Posted on 01/06/2010 4:47:34 AM PST by Sergeant Tim
"You are a terrorist, and we do not negotiate with terrorists." -- Federal District Court Judge William G. Young to Richard C. Reid, at his sentencing to life in prison on January 30, 2003. Reid pled guilty to attempting to blow up in flight American Airlines Flight 63."
Chris Wallace (January 3, 2010, Fox News Sunday): "But once [Abdulmuttalab] gets his Miranda rights, he doesn't have to speak at all."
The President's Homeland Security Assistant John Brennan: "He doesn't have to, but he knows that there are certain things that are on the table, and if he wants to, in fact, engage with us in a productive manner, there are ways that he can do that."
President Barack Obama's policy of negotiating with terrorists is not one of America's core values.
We don't know yet if Abdulmuttalab was initially interrogated without being read Miranda warnings or if he later invoked the offered privileges. We do know Abdulmuttalab and Reid were in possession of explosive devices aboard commercial airlines and attempted to set off those devices. Their actions were enough proof to earn a life sentence from either a Military Commission or federal court; we did not need to read them "their" rights.
We also know it was a mistake to not interrogate Reid. He maintained that he acted alone, even though a different hand print was found on the explosive material. Reid was sentenced prior to Saajid Badat's arrest in England. The latter backed out on the plot and confessed immediately to British police when they raided his parent's house in November 2003 and found his shoe-bomb. Yet Badat did not turn himself in and only indicated "an Arab" gave him the device while he was in Afghanistan. A lot of people could have been killed because Reid remained silent.
Twenty-five British men reportedly trained in Yemen about the same time as Abdulmuttalab.
He may negotiate yet his bargaining position will be a lot stronger if only one jihadist sets off his panty-bomb in a small crowd. The terror instilled by that prospect is why Abdulmuttalab should not have been given a choice.
that article needs an editor
read the title again as I highlighted it...
Ah. “I see,” said the the blind man.
I emailed the FR webmaster and asked for a title change.
Glad you posted this.
I haven’t heard much discussion of the precedent setting potential of these unprecedented trials.
Most detainees will be able to claim torture, captivity without bail, prejudice among jurors, no miranda readings, and so on.
Obama’s justice depot assures us that they will convict all. If they do, it will mean rulings contrary to constitutional privileges now taken for granted.
We should be asking about the erosion of civil rights and liberties likely to result if they win convictions.
Clearly, the best outcome for the country would be acquittal. There’s a reason 0 moved these trials to the US.
Reid is an American Citizen protected by the Constitution!
The Nigerian IS NOT!!!
Reid is not an American citizen. Perhaps you are confusing him with Jose Padilla or John Walker Lindh.
The best outcome for the country is Obama changing his mind and military commissions used to prosecute all the detainees that are prosecuted.
Reid was a British Citizen. Walker was an American Citizen.
Any useful intel should have been extracted from Reid by any means necessary and then he should have met his end by any means necessary...or to be more compassionate...he could be allowed to live long enough to watch his handlers die by the most cruel and unusual means.
“Ah. I see, said the the blind man.”
LOL! That’s why trying to proofread you own stuff is useless!
Reid is British, not American.
I don't think he will, at least voluntarily.
Consider what's in it for him: a political climate demanding convictions, which in US courts would seem nigh impossible without some exceptional rulings against defendants' rights. What will they decide? Perhaps they'll decide terrorist suspects are exceptions whose rights the government is not obliged to strictly observe. They may decide to exempt witnesses for prosecution to testify in person, allow evidence otherwise be considered hearsay, hold hearings in private, etc.
Thus precedents will set, which the government will exploit to prosecute any person it deems a "terrorist." Noticed who this administration regards as terrorists? A scenario like this no longer seems impossible to me.
Another thing 0 would like to do: prosecute the Bush administration. This is the crowbar that will get him through the door.
Note recent changes instituted with respect to international police?
What 0 wants is ultimately, I suspect, is to head some international body, with wide reaching powers over this country. The presidency is merely a stepping stone.
Call me paranoid, but this is the picture I see emerging.