Glenn Beck defends Constitution – John McCain sells out for a vote
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
This is the oath of office taken by ever member of the United States Senate – one that John McCain has sworn four times.
You’d think he would know what it meant by now.
Appearing this morning on today’s Don Imus’ Radio Show, Sen. McCain came out hard against granting alleged Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized American citizen, his constitutional right to Miranda warnings.
Obviously that would be a serious mistake … at least until we find out as much information we have,” McCain said during an appearance on “Imus in the Morning” when asked whether the suspect, 30-year-old Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized American citizen from Pakistan, should be given his constitutional rights. Don’t give this guy his Miranda rights until we find out what it’s all about.
Even Glenn Beck had the good sense to realize that Shadzad, as an American citizen, is entitled to these Constitutionally protected rights.
In his morning appearance on “Fox and Friends’ Beck said,
“He is a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens. [Shahzad] has all the rights under the Constitution. Beck added, “We don’t shred the Constitution when it’s popular. We do the right thing.
Via Huffington Post
Clearly, this is not a case of a bleeding heart liberal standing up for the downtrodden and oppressed. Everyone ‘gets’ that getting as much information from accused terrorists is important. And the FBI did, in fact, utilize the public safety exception to Miranda to do some preliminary questioning of the alleged bomber, no doubt being careful not to exceed the exception and risk losing the admissibility of Mr. Shahzad’s statements in a court of law.
But both conservatives and progressives alike grasp that there are lines that are not to be crossed if we are to remain the kind of society intended by our Constitution. They also grasp that you cannot swear an oath to defend the Constitution and then turn your back on it when it is convenient – or popular with voters – to do so.
In Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (ironic), the United States Supreme Court ruled that statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.
We can argue over whether or not these protections should be extended to a foreign national who commits a crime or terrorist act on American soil. We can argue over whether the ‘underpants bomber’ should be entitled to these protections when attempting a terrorist crime in U.S.. airspace. These are all credible questions open to debate and, someday, Supreme Court rulings.
But – like it or not – we granted the accused Times Square bomber citizenship. He’s an American. If he is proven guilty, he’s an American we can be ashamed of and one who should suffer the maximum penalty available, but he’s an American just the same.
If Senator McCain doesn’t like law, he can certainly begin the process of amending the law, either via legislation or a constitutional amendment.
Until then, Miranda remains the law of the land and having a United States Senator- who came within a few votes of being President – argue that we should ignore the law, is truly an upsetting spectacle.
Shame on John McCain.
Shame on anyone who wants to be re-elected to office so badly that he would so cynically suggest subverting the Constitution of the United States to get a few votes.
I am no longer interested in hearing the usual defense of McCain based on his time spent in the Hanoi Hilton. Many American soldiers died in our country’s many wars and were thus denied the opportunity to return home as heros to run for public office. While McCain may have suffered a difficult incarceration during the Viet Nam war, all those soldiers who didn’t make it back did not give up their lives so John McCain could use his large platform to sell out the Constitution in order to curry favor with the electorate.
Talk about dishonoring our soldiers.
John McCain may have once been a patriot – but now he is little more than an aged and cynical politician who cares only for the power that comes with holding on to his office.
If Senator McCain no longer has any use for the Constitution and laws of this nation, this nation can have no more use for Senator McCain.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Thank goodness the man wasn’t elected president.
Couldn’t agree more. This comment REALLY shocked me. Lieberman’s comment about taking away citizenship due to suspicion also shocked me. What’s wrong with these people?
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by rickungar. rickungar said: RT @trueslant – Rick Ungar – The Policy Page – True/Slant http://bit.ly/b8Xtcf [...]
Come on…let’s comment on this guys in a language they will understand…”Why do you hate America and what it stands for?”
[...] Glenn Beck defends Constitution – John McCain sells out fοr a vote … [...]
[...] Other conservatives like Glenn Beck are even giving the Attorney General cover for having done so (Rick Ungar [...]
Paulie Wallnuts there lost any ability to play the patriot card when he selected Sarah Palin as a running mate. Not because she is totally off the charts inane, but because when asked whether she was fully vetted before he selected her, he did not know. It was the most cynical thing imaginable and he has no business being in politics because of that decision.
Hello Rick,
People tend to view rights, especially in a criminal proceeding, as treats, something someone gets if they “deserve” them. The innocent victim of a mis-identification deserves rights, a nice guy mixed up with the wrong crowd deserves rights, the real “bad guy” does not.
The problem is that it is not possible to defend the rights of the not guilty or even the innocent unless the rights of the guilty and nasty are defended as well, it is an all or nothing proposition. Just as importantly, the rights help us convict the right individuals. If the wrong people are convicted, that means the guilty, i.e. dangerous individual is still out there.
Protecting the rights of bad people protects the rest of us.
[...] the rest here: Glenn Beck defends Constitution – John McCain sells out for a vote … MLM Network Marketing Training | Backlinking Off-Page SEO …Google Tasks mobile page for [...]
[...] Glenn Beck defends Constitution – John McCain sells out fοr a vote … [...]
Civil rights cases are never popular fodder. Even Glenn Beck sees it: Shahzad should be given all the rights of a US citizen. He committed his acts here. Whether he did so on behalf of a foreign government or whatever, is irrelevant.
However, had he been found on the battlefield overseas, fighting US forces, I would think a reasonable lawyer would invoke Title 8, Chapter 12, Sub-chapter III, section 1481 (a)(3). He has forfeit his citizenship by “serving with armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the US.”
The Taliban was a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the US. Despite being forcibly removed from Afghanistan, their military still exists. I don’t think many courts would conclude that someone who fights with them is still a US citizen.
This seems to be quite a sophistry: Fight with them over there, and your citizenship will be revoked by your own actions. Fight with them by engaging in terrorist attacks here in the US and you get all your rights.
Our laws were not designed for conflicts of this sort.
Hello jake brodsky,
Citizenship is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The constitution does not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens in these cases. For example, the sixth amendment says;
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
This right is not limited to citizens, the text just says “the accused”.
In response to another comment. See in context »Ahh, yes, but in which court, and under what laws? Witness what became of Johnny Walker Lindh…
In response to another comment. See in context »Hello jake brodsky,
Mr. Lindh was indicted by a Federal grand jury on 10 charges and plead guilty to two of those. He enjoyed sixth amendment rights during his legal proceedings. He is serving in prison and is eligible for parole in 17 years. He is still a US citizen.
Had he been a foreigner and charged with the same crimes in the US, that foreigner would have enjoyed all of the same rights.
In response to another comment. See in context »Actually, I think our laws in this area were constructed better than you might think.
In response to another comment. See in context »While I’m in no more of a mood than anyone else to defend this guy, I have to say that the argument that “the Taliban” is a foreign state is just not right. What state are they? They are a terrorist/political movement – not a state.
I don’t have a problem with amending the loss of citizenship laws to apply to terrorist activities, but they need to be modified. And Lieberman’s suggestion that citizenship can be pulled upon the accusation that one is a terrorist is absolutely insane.
For all intents and purposes the Taliban was the functional government of Afghanistan even though the US did not formally recognize it. It was functional enough for NATO to send their militaries out there to effect the political goal of removing them from power. As I said, given the intent of the law, I would have a hard time imagining that most courts of law would see it differently.
In response to another comment. See in context »Jake
In response to another comment. See in context »I understand what you’re saying but I don’t think I agree. The law requires that we can’t vary these definitions. I suspect this would explain why John Walker Lindh was never stripped of his citizenship.
If a terrorist joins the army of Afghanistan -and Afghanistan is at war against us- that would be one thing. However, the Taliban is not the army of Afghanistan. The comparison would be to say that one of our political parties is the government of the United States. Thus, I think it highly unlikely that the courts would see it as you suggest. As I noted, this law can be modified to work.
Hello jake brodsky,
Whether the Afghan or Pakistani Taliban qualifies as a foreign states or not is irrelevant to the discussions at hand. Whether Mr. Lindh or Mr. Shahzad are US citizens or can potentially be stripped of their citizenship is irrelevant as well. If they are to be arrested and tried in this country, they have rights in criminal proceeding. Stephen R. Staplton explained it quite nicely with the appropriate citations.
In response to another comment. See in context »Constitutional protections apply to the citizen and non-citizen alike. The issue was litigated some time ago, in 1886, in the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins. That same principal was upheld in Boumediene v. Bush as recently as 2008.
As the court wrote in the Yick case, “The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: ‘Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. . . . The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.”
Not to understand this principle is to not understand one of the bedrock truth of the American nation. Our rights do not derive from a grant from the government. They do not exist or crumble at the whim of a sovereign. We are born with these rights. They are ours because we are human beings. They exist and belong to all persons in all places. When they are abridged, that is tyranny. Our government was established to protect and defended these rights, not give them to us.
Remember, we hold this truth to be self-evident: all people are created equal.
Stephen-
In response to another comment. See in context »Very well explained!
It’s sad to see McCain so desperate that he has to pander to the worst sentiments of the voting public. John McCain of 2000 would stand right up with Glenn Beck in decrying this willful denial of presumed innocence. What does this say about the state of Arizona, about the state of these United States?
You beat John Stewart to the punch with this one! Even John reluctantly had good things to say about Beck.
That’s only because he goes on the air later than I write my posts!
In response to another comment. See in context »The Republican Party served up a fat pitch when this GOP nominated this unprincipled egomaniac for president. The GOP deserved to lose the election more so than the democrats deserved to win it.
If there is one thing we should all know about McCain by now is that he says and does what is best for our Nation, regardless of what it makes him look like. An American citizen is entitled to the Constitutional rights if it was NOT an act of terrorist. Clearly Beck needs to re-visit the terrorist situations. I am afraid that this country is falling away from being stern against terrorists and it will only hurt us. McCain is our strongest leader,especially when it comes to protecting this Nation.