The arrest of Faisal Shahzad by the New York Police Department, for attempting to set off a bomb in Times Square last Saturday, came with a hidden.... yet VERY important... silver lining. A silver lining that was "unplanned" and desperately needed.
In all honesty, there were several silver linings in this incident:
The successful apprehension of a terrorism suspect in just over two days.
The cooperative and unified efforts of several law enforcement entities.
The successful interrogation of this terror suspect, which lead to identifying those parties that were responsible for this heinous action.
The amendment of our national no-fly list and the manner in which airlines shall adhere to it.
With all due respect to these subsequent "atta-boys" they pale in comparison to what we consider the greatest accomplishment derived from this arrest.
Before we delve into this great accomplishment, here is the backstory...
On December 22, 2001, Richard Colvin Reed was apprehended by civilian law enforcement after attempting to set off a shoe bomb while flying on American Airlines flight 63. Upon apprehension, Reed was read his Miranda Rights and a full investigation was under way. No real controversy about the apprehension, arrest or investigation. End result, on October 4, 2002, Reed pled guilty to all eight counts. On January 31, 2003, he was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole, with three life sentences to be served consecutively. In addition, Reed was directed to pay $2,000,000 in fines.
On December 25, 2009, Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab was apprehended by civilian law enforcement after attempting to set off an underwear bomb while flying on Northwest Airlines flight 253. Upon apprehension, Mutallab was read his Miranda Rights and a full investigation was under way.
This arrest and investigation set of an explosive level of protest and debate about the "reading of Miranda Rights" to a terrorist. Arguments on the right and left accused the United States Government of giving Constitutional protection to a foreigner, and a terrorist. This debate became so severe that some were crying that it is "dangerous" and "weak on national security" to read a terrorist his Miranda Rights thereby giving him the same protection that you would give an American citizen. The debates went into overdrive and in some cases became very heated and dangerously close to crossing a few lines.
Those in support of "reading the Miranda Rights" spent a lot of time arguing the wrong side of the issue. Instead of seeking a factual point, many in support simply argued that "you did it for Reed and didn't complain, so why are you complaining about reading Mutallab his rights?"
This is the high school classic, "I know you are, but what am I" routine. But it had no merit, rhyme or reason.
On May 1, 2010 Faisal Shahzad attempted to set of a car bomb in the middle of New York City's Times Square. On May 3, 2010 Shazhad was apprehended by civilian law enforcement while attempting to flee the country. Shahzad was immediately read his Miranda Rights and the investigation was under way....and the arguments started again.
But this is where the silver lining became apparent in this situation. A silver lining that should not only squash the senseless debates in this case but also retroactively address the senseless debates in the Mutallab case and other similar debates.
That silver lining was the REALIZATION that a police officer reading a suspect his Miranda Rights does NOT majestically grant a person Constitutional protection. Contrary to popular belief, police officers do not have that authority.
Fact: Once a civilian law enforcement official detains or arrest a person for a criminal concern, the arrest or detention comes with the right to remain quiet, the right to seek legal council and the right to speak with council before answering questions, and with that right, anything the person being detained or arrested says, can and will be used against them in a court of law.
The fact that this Admonition of Rights is read to the person being detained, is merely notification. And the act of reading this admonition to the person being detained or arrested is a actually a protective act for the police officer.
So, in turn, anyone who argues against reading Miranda Rights to these losers who were arrested for trying to harm American citizens is actually arguing against protecting our law enforcement officers.....think about it.
After listening to certain talk radio personalities over the last day or two (props to Stephanie Miller Show) I am hearing more and more people finally coming to this realization....after the Shahzad arrest....and as a cop...that makes me all warm and fuzzy on the inside :-)
So this argument is officially over.......isn't it?
Nothing More, Nothing Less.