John McCain is a Fascist Pig

[Dave]

John McCain is impressing Republican primary voters again by calling for American citizen Faisal Shahzad, the suspect in the attempted Times Square car bombing, to be denied his Miranda rights. "Obviously that would be a serious mistake" to read Shahzad his rights, "at least until we find out as much information we have [sic], and there are legal ways of delaying that" McCain told Don Imus this morning. His sentiment was echoed by Long Island congressman Peter King, who said, "I hope that if they did read him his rights and if they are going for an indictment as opposed to a tribunal that he did discuss it with the director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, all the component parts of the intelligence community." Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters this afternoon that Shahzad was "initially questioned under a public safety exception to the Miranda rule and was cooperative," but was "later read his Miranda rights and 'continued talking.'" But is declining to read Shahzad his rights until we find out "as much information" as possible, or choosing to prosecute him in a military tribunal, even an option? Nope, says basically everyone.



• Marc Ambinder doesn't see any wiggle room: "Military commissions only have jurisdiction over 'alien unprivileged enemy belligerents,' and Shahzad is a naturalized American citizen. Unless McCain and King are willing to create two classes of American citizens, Shahzad has every right to be read his Miranda warnings, and he will be tried by federal prosecutors in a federal court." [Marc Ambinder/Atlantic]



• Andrew Sullivan says that the "cynical" and "power-hungry" McCain "favors shredding any constitutional rights for an American citizen suspected of a terror attack." [Andrew Sullivan/Atlantic]



• Joe Klein writes that, undoubtedly, "under current law, as an American citizen, Shahzad has" Miranda rights. But he could be open to modifying the law to "exclude terrorism cases."
[Swampland/Time]



• Jennifer Rubin wonders if the administration has "internalized any of the lessons of the Christmas Day bomber" and even "bother[ed] to assess the risks and benefits of Mirandizing a terror suspect this time around." [Contentions/Commentary]



• Greg Sargent finds it "striking how quickly King and McCain (with others certain to follow) rushed to offer pre-emptive criticism of the administration’s handling of the suspect — a mere 12 hours after his arrest." [Plum Line/Who Runs Gov]



• Steve Benen contends that "we know that the Mirandizing suspects does not undermine our national security interests. For decades, this wasn't even a subject open to debate until Republicans decided last year this might be exploited politically to confused scared voters." [Political Animal/Washington Monthly]



• Adam Serwer points out that "things like Mirandization were non-issues for McCain during the Bush administration, when more than 403 convictions were secured through the civilian justice system." [Tapped/American Prospect]



• Glenn Beck confounded his Fox News colleagues by unambiguously backing Mirandization. "We don't shred the Constitution when it is popular," Beck added. "We do the right thing." [HuffPo]



• Ed Morrissey agrees: "Shahzad is an American citizen, arrested by law enforcement in America. As a US citizen, Shahzad has the right to remain silent. In that sense, he differs from the EunuchBomber, who attempted to enter the country (our airspace) to conduct a sabotage mission for an enemy of the US." [Hot Air]



• Matthew Yglesias reminds McCain why we read people Miranda rights, because "if you don’t, you risk having your evidence thrown out of court. If you gather all the information before mirandizing, you could be throwing the whole thing into doubt. Which is why professionals give out the warning. They warn amateurs and drug addicts and crazy people and sophisticated members of organized crime syndicates." [Think Progress]

 

[Dave]

But at least he didn't create an oil spill intentionally

Gibbs Lashes Out At Fox News When Asked If Oil Spill Is 'Obama's Katrina'


After ex-FEMA director Michael Brown said on Fox News last night that the Obama administration wanted the oil spill to happen ("This president has never supported big oil, he's never supported offshore drilling, and now he has an excuse to shut it back down"), White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs offered some retaliation today. At a White House press briefing this afternoon, Fox’s Wendell Goler asked if the Gulf of Mexico oil spill could be thought of as "Obama’s Hurricane Katrina." And that was all that was needed to set Gibbs off:

"... For those who weren't let in on the big secret, Mr. Brown... intimated on Fox - and it wasn't, I will editorially say, didn't appear to be pushed back on real hard - that this spill was leaked on purpose in order for us to walk back our environmental and drilling decisions, and that the leak that we did on purpose got out of control and now is too big to contain," Gibbs said. "I'm not entirely sure that a factual answer that I might give to any one of your questions is gonna change the notion that your network put out the former FEMA director to make an accusation that the well had been purposefully set off in order to change an offshore drilling decision."

 

[Theo]

Re: "John McCain is a Fascist Pig"

Apparently Dave rejects President Obama's speech to the graduating class at the University of Michigan the other day:

Throwing around phrases like..."fascist"... -- that may grab headlines, but it also has the effect of comparing our government, our political opponents, to authoritarian, even murderous regimes.... The problem is that this kind of vilification and over-the-top rhetoric closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It undermines democratic deliberation. It prevents learning -- since, after all, why should we listen to a "fascist"...? It makes it nearly impossible for people who have legitimate but bridgeable differences to sit down at the same table and hash things out. It robs us of a rational and serious debate, the one we need to have about the very real and very big challenges facing this nation. It coarsens our culture, and at its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response.

Way to go, Dave. You are coarsening our culture and signaling to the most extreme elements that perhaps violence is a justifiable response.

For those who can calm down, here's something worth reading on this topic:

The FBI had taken Shahzad into custody and started to question him initially without Miranda warnings under the public safety exception. Let’s imagine that Shahzad’s demeanor left the impression that he might speak to the FBI without Miranda warnings but that he might clam up if read the warnings. If that were the case, the FBI could lawfully make the decision of whether to continue to question Shahzad without Miranda warnings or whether to give him the warnings and obtain a waiver. In other words, the FBI could make the call on the ground based on his conduct.

Importantly, though, it would not have violated Shahzad’s constitutional rights to not read him his Miranda rights. A lot of people assume that the police are required to read a suspect his rights when he is arrested. That is, they assume that one of a person’s rights is the right to be read their rights. It often happens that way on Law & Order, but that’s not what the law actually requires. Under Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003), it is lawful for the police to not read a suspect his Miranda rights, interrogate him, and then obtain a statement that would be inadmissible in court. Chavez holds that a person’s constitutional rights are violated only if the prosecution tries to have the statement admitted in court. See id. at 772–73. Indeed, the prosecution is even allowed to admit any physical evidence discovered as a fruit of the statement obtained in violation of Miranda — only the actual statement is excluded. See United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004). So while it may sound weird, it turns out that obtaining a statement outside Miranda but not admitting it in court is lawful.

As a result, the FBI would have acted entirely lawfully in making a choice on the ground as to whether to read Shahzad his Miranda rights. The choice would have been between the odds of getting a statement that they could not use in court without the warnings versus the odds of getting a statement that they could use in court with the warnings. Shahzad turned out to be a talker, so the FBI gave him the warnings, got his waiver, and then continued to get more statements from him — all of which will be admissible in federal court.

 

[Theo]

New York City's nanny-state Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, told us - if he had to guess - the terror suspect would turn out to be some home-grown lone person who was upset with the health care bill:

[youtube]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QdbUwlM4bK4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QdbUwlM4bK4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Could be. Since we’re pulling theories out of our ass, let me try a few. Maaaaybe … it’s a liberal amnesty shill upset at Nazi America’s tolerance of Arizona’s immigration law? Maaaaybe … it’s a gay-rights supporter irate at the slow pace of progress on “don’t ask, don’t tell”? Maaaaybe … it’s a nutritional fanatic angry that the City hasn’t completely banned salt yet? (Actually, that would make Nanny Bloomberg a prime suspect.) Maaaaybe … it’s the president’s old pal Bill Ayers reliving his glory days? Anything’s possible, so why not have the mayor of the country’s largest city speculate idly on the national news about it?

 

[Theo]

MSNBC's Contessa Brewer was really hoping the Times Square bomber was a "teabagger" of some sort, and not someone with ties to Islam:

[youtube]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yRmPTN07Iz4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yRmPTN07Iz4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]

And notice how she doesn't wanna convict Faisal Shahzad before he's had his day in court, but she's already convicted the Huttaree Militia.

She should tell that to the Associated Press:

DETROIT (AP) -- Federal authorities touted the arrests of nine members of a Michigan militia as a pre-emptive strike against homegrown terrorists, declaring at an initial court hearing that the suspects with "dark hearts and evil intent" wanted to go to war against the government.

Five weeks later, prosecutors are scrambling to regroup after a judge questioned the strength of their evidence by ordering the so-called rebels released until trial and saying they had a right to "engage in hate-filled, venomous speech."

"The government is falling short," said David Griem, a former federal prosecutor who's not involved in the case. "The message that's been sent to the community is there are problems with this case."

 

[Theo]

Sorry, MSNBC, the terrorist wasn't a "teabagger", despite your prayers.

BRIDGEPORT, Conn. (AP) -- A real estate broker says the Times Square bombing suspect told him years ago he disliked President George W. Bush and the Iraq war.

Igor Djuric (JOOR-itch) represented Faisal Shahzad (FY'-sul shah-ZAHD') when he was buying a home in 2004. Djuric says he could not remember the exact words but said Shahzad made clear he didn't like Bush or his policy in Iraq.

We're still waiting for all that terrorism MSNBC promised the "teabaggers" would hit us with.....

Meanwhile, another Bush-hater who mourns the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime tried to blow innocent people up.

But I can understand MSNBC's demonization of the Tea Party movement. The "teabaggers" are just not diverse enough for 'em:

[youtube]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hMdPTpOyUk4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hMdPTpOyUk4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]

 

[Dave]

Way to go, Dave. You are coarsening our culture and signaling to the most extreme elements that perhaps violence is a justifiable response.

the most extreme elements? the ones that are being told by Sarah Palin to "reload"?

anyway, I didn't signal anything to anyone. I commented on McCain's call for someone to have their Miranda Rights taken away.

 

[Theo]

Mark Levin weighs in on the chimp's handling of the oil spill:

[youtube]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OqmTFKephyY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OqmTFKephyY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]

 

[Dave]

Mark Levin weighs in on the chimp's handling of the oil spill:

[youtube]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OqmTFKephyY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OqmTFKephyY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]

I listened to that for 3 minutes. I should get an award.

 

[yakuza]

Link war. Bad ass.

 

[Dave]

 

[Theo]

I listened to that for 3 minutes. I should get an award.

Well, you should've listened to the last minute, because Levin makes a great point. You're watching the pathetic federal government in action in the oil catastrophe, so why is it that the socialists think we should give more and more authority to the federal government over our lives? It's a good question that no one on the left has ever given a good answer to.

And BTW, isn't it amusing that nowhere in this thread calling McCain a "fascist pig" did you mention anything about this:

THEY TOLD ME THAT IF I VOTED FOR MCCAIN, we’d get an Attorney General who’d want to curtail Miranda rights. And they were right!

Attorney General Eric Holder said that Congress should “give serious consideration” to updating the Miranda warning which requires law enforcement officials to inform suspects of their rights – including the right to remain silent.

In an interview on “This Week,” Holder said that the U.S. needs to exam whether the current rules regarding Miranda warnings give law enforcement agents the “necessary flexibility” when dealing with terrorism cases.

Ah, remember all that talk about the “lawless Bush Administration” trampling civil rights, and the fierce moral urgency of change? Well, if you believed that stuff when they were peddling it. . . hey, rube!

Meanwhile, Christopher Fountain writes: “If only we had elected Obama, we wouldn’t have this travesty of justice.”

I don’t think it’s going over well: “Put George W. Bush in blackface and what do you get? Evidently, Barack H. Obama. Why not? Obama and his team have sold out on Iraq, Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, Gitmo, military tribunals, health care reform, financial reform, DADT and offshore drilling, so what’s the big deal about throwing Miranda into the pile? And by the way, what is the ‘new threat’ Holder is talking about?”

I guess it somehow slipped under your radar....

 

[Theo]

Re: But at least he didn't create an oil spill intentionally

RE:

...Oil Spill Is 'Obama's Katrina'

Sarah Palin weighs in:

....Sarah Palin accused US President Barack Obama on Sunday of leading a lax response to the Gulf of Mexico spill because he is too close to the big oil companies.

The former vice presidential candidate and Alaska governor, who champions off-shore drilling, criticized the media for not drawing the link between Obama and big oil and said if this spill had happened under former Republican president George W. Bush the scrutiny would have been far tougher.

Obviously. The mainstream media always gives Obama a pass. But the people will have a lot to say this November!

"I don't know why the question isn't asked by the mainstream media and by others if there's any connection with the contributions made to president Obama and his administration and the support by the oil companies to the administration," she told Fox News Sunday.

More than 3.5 million dollars has been given to candidates by BP over the last 20 years, with the largest single donation, 77,051 dollars, going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Palin suggested this close relationship explained why Obama was, "taking so doggone long to get in there, to dive in there, and grasp the complexity and the potential tragedy that we are seeing here in the Gulf of Mexico."

The BP-leased Deepwater Horizon rig exploded on April 20, killing 11 workers, and sank two days later. Ever since, hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil, perhaps millions, have been spewing each day into the sea.

The resulting slick, now the size of a small country, threatens to leave Louisiana's fishing and coastal tourism industries in tatters, ruin pristine nature reserves, and cause decades of harm to the ecology of fragile marshes that are a haven for rare wildlife and migratory birds.

 

[Quiffaa]

Miranda ... as in

• you have the right to be silent and
• not be tortured

?

 

[Anaesthesine]

This is a childish conversation (as usual) but:

Sarah Palin accusing Barack Obama of being in bed with big oil is a bit like Jeffrey Dahmer accusing Chris Brown of being a bad date. Chris Brown will lose his temper and give you the occasional black eye, but Jeffrey Dahmer will rape you, drill a hole in your skull and then eat your dead flesh.

According to that liberal rag the Wall Street Journal, so far in the current election cycle 71% of all gas and oil industry contributions have gone to the GOP. In the 2008 presidential campaign, John McCain received $2.4 million dollars from big oil, more than twice Obama's $898,000.

That's politics - no one's hands are ever clean. The Dems have oil under their nails, but the GOP (and the Gulf Coast) are soaking in it.

 

[Worm]

This is a childish conversation (as usual) but:

Sarah Palin accusing Barack Obama of being in bed with big oil is a bit like Jeffrey Dahmer accusing Chris Brown of being a bad date. Chris Brown will lose his temper and give you the occasional black eye, but Jeffrey Dahmer will rape you, drill a hole in your skull and then eat your dead flesh.

According to that liberal rag the Wall Street Journal, so far in the current election cycle 71% of all gas and oil industry contributions have gone to the GOP. In the 2008 presidential campaign, John McCain received $2.4 million dollars from big oil, more than twice Obama's $898,000.

That's politics - no one's hands are ever clean. The Dems have oil under their nails, but the GOP (and the Gulf Coast) are soaking in it.

Chris Brown loses his temper from time to time, but that's just for show. He'll also steadily poison your soul and steal your will to live so that eventually you'll freely give up your body for sex, ventilate your cranium with a pickaxe, and sign a waver allowing your body to be converted to biofuel and sold in WalMart as part of an 'eco-friendly' line of 'human redistribution products', five cents of each sale going to Nepalese orphans.

 

[Anaesthesine]

Wow, that gives "I Can Transform Ya" a whole new layer of meaning...

 

[Worm]

Wow, that gives "I Can Transform Ya" a whole new layer of meaning...

Well, sure. Chris Brown is gifted at transformin' ya. He has a new transformation in mind-- seen this yet?

PETRA

It's a new bill that would essentially privatize public housing, i.e., it would empower slumlords and further reduce the ability of the government to assist citizens in need. This is happening right now, under Obama.

With bills like this, black eyes start to look appealing.

 

[Anaesthesine]

Well, sure. Chris Brown is gifted at transformin' ya. He has a new transformation in mind-- seen this yet?

PETRA

It's a new bill that would essentially privatize public housing, i.e., it would empower slumlords and further reduce the ability of the government to assist citizens in need. This is happening right now, under Obama.

With bills like this, black eyes start to look appealing.

Bless you, Worm, for posting the actual bill. Since I don't have time to read the whole thing (I see that it is "streamlining" fair-housing laws, which does sound ominous), I'm going to take your word for it that it essentially privatizes public housing.

I'd have to listen to both sides of this argument before passing judgement, but if this is what it looks like, then it's certainly a step backwards from a more fair and just society.

*sigh*

To belabor the metaphor, we now have a choice between a messed-up boyfriend who will smack you around (but buy you flowers every once in a while, too), or a psycho who will brutally kill you outright.

You can try to reason with the first one; all you can do with the second one is say your prayers.

Jeez, can't a girl catch a break?

 

[Our Lady]

I'd have to listen to both sides of this argument before passing judgement, but if this is what it looks like, then it's certainly a step backwards from a more fair and just society.

Who could be duller?