Gingrich: Shoe Bomber Was An American Citizen (He Wasn't), So It Was OK To Mirandize Him

[kpete]

In their quest to cast President Obama's handling of the Christmas bomber as weak and ineffectual, Republicans have had to overcome a stubborn fact: The Bush administration handled shoe bomber Richard Reid in similar fashion in 2001. So what do you do with stubborn facts? You change them.

On the Daily Show last night, Newt Gingrich claimed the "shoe bomber," Richard Reid, is an American citizen.

Reid is actually a British citizen.

Gingrich was attacking the Obama administration for reading the Miranda rights to the Christmas Day attempted bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Jon Stewart pointed out that the Bush administration did the same to Reid.

VIDEO & more:
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/gingrich-shoe-bomber-richard-reid-was-an-american-citizen-so-it-was-ok-to-mirandize-him.php

[Kingofalldems]

1. They lie about everything.

[troubledamerican]

30. Like FOX News calling Mark Foley (R-FL) "Dem Sex Scandal"? ... Or ...

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Conyers_issues_statement_after_Fox_News_0605.html

[spanone]

2. 2 words----fuck newt

[abbeyco]

4. +1

[Liberal In Texas]

3. I don't know where they get the idea that people from other countries here for

whatever reason don't have Constitutional rights.

[Jim__]

5. I hope Jon Stewart clarifies that on his show.

And I hope he tears Gingrich a new one while doing it.

[lame54]

18. he clarified it at the outro right before the moment of zen

[AzDar]

6. Made me screech at the teevee last night.

Jon didn't call him on it, either...:(

[HipChick]

8. Jon addressed it at the end of his show..

[Jenniboo]

11. Actually....

He did some fact checking to make sure, but closed the show with the actual truth. He's on it. May all the gods bless Jon Stewart.

[tanyev]

7. What is it with liberals and their obsession with facts?

Why can't they just believe anything that conservatives say? The teabaggers do. *mutter, mutter, mutter*



;)

[bvar22]

9. Jon Stewart DID correct that in the next segment.

But not to Newt's face.
My wife caught it when Newt said it, and maybe Jon did too, but wanted to Fact Check.

Anyway, after the commercial, Jon Stewart DID say that Reid was NOT an American Citizen, but was British.

The segment with Newt was was well worth the watch.
Stewart was in great form, and nailed Newt several times.
The best was:
(paraphrase)
I AM a New Yorker.
I WAS here 9-11.
I LOST friends.
I WANT the trials to be held here.
It IS JUSTICE.....(but the actual quote is even better.)

[marmar]

10. If his lips are flapping......

:think:

[Flaneur]

12. I think he meant "It's okay because he's a white guy."

[bearpaw101]

13. Newt Terror Error

You are missing the bigger point here.. Richard Reed was apprehended under PRE-911 RULES/LAWS.

Congreess, ONLY some months AFTER 911, authorized the use of ENEMY COMBATANT for terror related suspects. The Bush adminstration (under PRE-911 RULES/LAWS) did not have this authorization/option for the treatment of a Richard Reed or even the Christmas bomber for that matter.

However, the Obama admistration was certainly under no such constraints.. and should have made a more informed decision about the handling/Mirandizing of the Christmas Bomber.

The President and Eric Holder, among others, made a HUGE ERROR in judgement!!!!!

[Winterblues]

14. You need to examine your facts because they are not..

Reid was apprehended after 9-11 not before. You should read what the Judge in that case had to say about it. It might enlighten you if that is at all possible.

[bearpaw101]

15. Newt Terror Error

Please re-read prior post #13.. I was referring to the RULE of LAW that was in place PRE-911.. and still applied at the time Richard Reed was apprehended!

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bearpaw101]

20. Gabi's unnecessarily nasty reply.. displays

a sad absence of self control, or inability to debate powerfully and Intelligently!

[Gabi Hayes]

25. it was absolutely necessarily nasty, because your idiotic reference to 'rule of law' is gibberish,

for starters

and, as for your own ability to 'debate powerfully and intelligently', you don't have the slightest clue about the relevant law, so please stop wasting your (and our) time here

buh byeee

[bearpaw101]

27. On the contrary.. Many provisions of the

Patriot Act, were SUNSETED in.. not to begin until 2005; and for those provisions enacted earlier.. Many, if not most, were hotly debated, and often times in Federal law suits.

[Winterblues]

23. The Patriot Act was signed into Law two months before Reid was captured

The USA PATRIOT Act, commonly known as the "Patriot Act", is a statute enacted by the United States Government and signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The contrived acronym stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001

I did not realize it was an acronym :shrug:

[bearpaw101]

26. The Patriot Act DID NOT properly address..

the spcific Rules/Laws in question; as many aspects of the Patriot Act were debated for months and years afterward.. before much of it was fully applied.

[Iggo]

32. Ah, okay.

You're just making it up as you go.

Welcome to my Buddy List.

[bearpaw101]

33. You are ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!!

While the Patriot Act was passed shorlty after 911, many of the provisions were SUNSETED in.. not to begin until December 2005.

Most provisionsstill had to be drafted in detail and in thier entirety.. which took moths and ears of legal and political wrangling.

IN FACT.. the "Enemy Combatant" provision (as it is commonly referred to) was not signed into law until January 2006; and when it was to expire.. President Obamna re-signed it into law in 2009.

Those are INDISPUTABLE FACTS.. no matter how much you would like to dis-believe it!!!!

Signed.. Your Buddy

[Iggo]

16. PRE-911 RULES/LAWS (All Three) (n/t)

[lame54]

19. next you'll be defending the RNC trip to Hawaii

[Iggo]

21. How would life have been better if these men had not been Mirandized?

Why does it hurt you that they were?

[bearpaw101]

24. For a number of reasons.. and in no particular order

1) The cost for a civilian trial is astronomical

2) The cost for special treatment while incarcerated for trial (and afterward), to insure safety etc, is also astronomical

3) Our citizenship guarantees us certain rights and priviledges that we shouldn't so casually extend to others.

4) The ability of specially trained interrogators to cull information over a longer period of time.. without the constraints of a mirandized suspect.

5) A civilian trial forces the prosecution to display (often times for public view) very sensitive and classified materials that compromise on-going terror related investigations.. and strategies that are currently being employed to combat terrorism here and abroad.

and so on, and so on...

[Winterblues]

28. Where does it say in the Constitution that rights ONLY apply to citizens?

I believe it says persons and not citizens. The idea that people within the USA do not have guaranteed rights because they are not citizens is just plain BS and the LIE needs to stop.

[bearpaw101]

29. When a person is here LAWFULLY..

I would generally agree. But at the monent in time when a non-citizen.. especially after first admitting to authorities that he/she was operating on behalf of a known terrorist organization, and you strap a Bomb to yourself with clear intent to create mass casualties,

I think that you have clearly lost any AUTOMATIC rights to due process in a CIVILIAN forum.

[Iggo]

31. In your particular order...

1) Link? (cost?)
2) Link? (cost?)
3) Bullshit
4) Torture, without the constraints of law. Got it...
5) Link? ("oftentimes"? name one)

[bearpaw101]

34. Evidence that you requested..

USA Today ...Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a member of the House Judiciary Committee and former federal prosecutor...

Prosecuting all detainees in federal courts raises many problems. Evidence gathered through military interrogation or from intelligence sources might be thrown out. Defendants would have the right to confront witnesses, meaning undercover CIA officers or terrorist turncoats might have to take the stand, jeopardizing their cover and revealing classified intelligence tactics.


Investigative Unit
CBS 11 News ...The U.S. government's signature domestic terrorism case – against the North Texas-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development – was delayed by more than five months last year because federal prosecutors "inadvertently" released volumes of highly classified intelligence materials to defense attorneys, newly unsealed records show.

According to the records, government prosecutors arguing for the return of the intelligence material wrote that "its disclosure and dissemination could have profound national security and foreign policy implications" and that the private defense attorneys who viewed it did not have the legally required security clearances.


Washington A/P ...The Obama administration is considering a criminal trial in Washington for the Guantanamo Bay detainee suspected of masterminding the bombing of a Bali nightclub that killed 202 people, a plan that would bring one of the world's most notorious terrorism suspects just steps from the U.S. Capitol.

... Authorities already have begun discussing the intense security measures needed to bring Hambali and others before a Washington federal judge, the officials said.


NEW YORK A/P — Stepped-up security measures for the upcoming detention and trial of the suspects in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks are now expected to cost hundreds of millions of dollars — a far heftier price tag than originally thought.

In a letter to federal officials, Mayor Michael Bloomberg put the cost at $216 million for the first year after Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other suspects arrive in Manhattan from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. After that, the mayor said it would cost $200 million annually for as long as the men are detained in the city — mainly overtime for extra New York Police Department patrols...

[bearpaw101]

35. In re-buttal of your rediculous torture assertion..

ABC NEWS.. For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.

As ABC News first reported in September, waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director.

.."KSM lasted the longest under waterboarding, about a minute and a half, but once he broke, it never had to be used again," said a former CIA official familiar with KSM's case.

[NYC Liberal]

36. Responses:

1.) Okay, sure.

2.) Yes, it costs a lot.

3.) "Our citizenship" is not what guarantees our rights or anyone else's. We, by virtue of being human beings, have rights. The US Constitution protects those rights - which we already have as people - from being infringed upon by the US Government. Obviously it can't force other governments to protect them, so it does the most that it can.

4.) The fact that something is convenient does not make it right. If we wanted convenience over what was right, then we wouldn't have those protections for US citizens either.

5.) One wonders how a US citizen could ever be tried for a similar crime then, right? But somehow, we manage.

[spanone]

22. they have absolutely nothing. they lie and lie and lie.