On Ethics, Underwear and Obama
Nick Carraway | Tuesday, January 26, 2010 at 7:51PM | tagged Constitutional rights, Miranda rights, Morality, President Obama, Underwear Bomber, abdulmutallab, democrats, ethics, politics, terrorism | 11 Comments | in News & Commentary Consider the following scenario:
At the time your college age child is attending the big homecoming football game, you hear on the news that event security have apprehended one of the visiting school's fans after learning of a plot to disrupt homecoming activities. The person in question was caught red handed trying to sabotage the bleacher's of the hometeam, which could have possibly collapsed resulting in injury or even death to hundreds of fans. When questing the visitor, university security and school officials learned that this person was part of a larger group with other members planning to disrupt the homecoming festivities motivated by their unabashed hatred for their rival school. The questioning continued for most of the game's first quarter until, after ascertaining the seriousness of the threat, school officials decided to call the local police. Once the police arrived, they arrested the man and read him his Miranda rights, at which point he took advantage of his right to remain silent and gave no further information regarding the nefarious plot. School officials did not publicly release the details of their interview with the foiled saboteur, but did say that they believed the man had given them enough information that they could continue the homecoming game while preventing any further disruptions.
The game is now approaching half time and your child is there. Are you satisfied with the actions of the school and the police? Or do you believe the authorities should have foregone giving the suspect his Miranda warning, relying on the legal exception of an imminent threat?
Have your answer yet? Good.
Now imagine your phone rings. A voice on the other end informs you that the suspect in custody is your child. Does that change anything?
The US national intelligence community recently faced a similar ethical dilemma involving Mirandizing a foreign man with knowledge of a potentially imminent threat. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, otherwise known as the Underwear Bomber of the Christmas Day plot to destroy an airplane headed for Detroit, was recently questioned by FBI officials for 50 minutes. After Abdulmutallab made a series of "incriminating statements" to customs officials and doctors treating him for burn wounds, the FBI was called in to investigate. After learning valuable information including Abdulmutallab's admission that he had received Al Qaeda training in Yemen, the FBI agents stopped questioning until the effects of the man's medication wore off. Over five hours later the man was read his Miranda rights, chose to remain silent, and provided no further information to interrogators.
In both the case of the fictional homecoming game plotter and that of the Underwear Bomber, common sense screams out the correct choice. The lives of the many take precedence over the rights of those who would seek to harm them!
Is it best for America that criminals or in the latter example, foreign terrorists, be treated fairly and extended their full legal rights under US and international law? Yes, probably. However, would it be better to sacrifice these rights in order to prevent the possible loss of innocent life? Most definitely. Both cases present two unpleasant outcomes, however it is unquestionably better for America if our government chooses the lesser of the two evils.
Both suspects should have been questioned without Miranda rights with the justification that they possessed information of an imminent threat to public safety. In most courts of law, this exception would have been upheld, and the defendants most likley convicted of their crimes. From the perspective of the parents of these two young people, one must still conclude that the public's safety outweighs his child's Miranda rights. Even Abdulmutallab's father contacted US officials to warn them that his son was being radicalized in Yemen prior to the Christmas Day bombing plot. Why is it that the man's own father recognizes the Nigerian radical as a threat to the American public, yet our government is more concerned with making sure he gets Miranda rights before protecting its own people?
The answer to this question may offer a deep insight as to why the current leadership in Washington, D.C. is seeing such a collapse in public support. President Obama and the Democrats have undoubtedly chosen a tough time in which to govern America. We are still threatened by terrorism abroad and economic uncertainty at home. After a year to evaluate the Democratic responses to these issues, the American public is showing signs that it would prefer a clear, heavy-handed, decisive approach to the ambiguous, superficial, tax-and-spend mollycoddling of Obama, Pelosi and their colleagues. In other words, the nation needs and wants a strict, paternal approach to government; one that may cause temporary pain but will produce positive results in the long run. If the Democrats in Congress want to avoid getting tossed out next election cycle and Obama would like to see better poll numbers in his second year, then the mommying needs to stop. No more bailouts for businesses who made bad investments, no more kind words and concessions for countries that seek to destroy us, no more arguing over healthcare and global warming until people can once again be sure they won't lose their jobs tomorrow, and no more extending US Constitutional Rights to foreign enemy combatants until we are sure our own citizens are safe!
Reader Comments (11)
Rights are all we have. We can never allow the government to get that powerful. We may be experiencing difficult times but we will survive. In one hand you ask the government to lay off and on the other, you ask the government to be more proactive. I think this is the balance that Obama has not been able to get right. He needs to focus on a few things he knows well. His inexperience and lack of extensive knowledge into politics has hurt the nation this year. I believe in tonight's speech, we will see apologetic president who will talk about tough times and make the choices for the nation to improve. We need to stop spending. We need to raise tariffs on foreign goods. We need to promote American goods and jobs. It is the only way. Plus get out of Afghanistan and just provide Healthcare for the poorest, not for everyone.
Thanks for the post -- you have my pysched for tonight's State of the Union speech.
9/11 forced this nation to adapt new and controversial methods to keep its citizens safe. We were not attacked by a nation with borders. We were attacked by religious zealots scattered throughout the planet and within our own country. And int he past 8+ years, we have been kept remarkably safe considering there have been multiple attempts. The methods may not be to some people's likings, but oh well.
I remember a few months back when the big arguement started about torture. The mantra from the Left and PC was "This country does not torture." I wonder though how those would feel if there was nuke planted in NYC set to go off and we were able to capture one of the men responsible for planting it. Would you want the authoroties to do anything necessary to extract the information from this person in order to save the lives literally of millions or would you rather be on the high moral ground instead? Torture is black and white to those against it. I prefer to think in shades of grey...depending on the severity of the situation different tactics may be needed.
I beleive in this situation we have gotten into (and I do not excuse prior US involvement in the Middle East for years that eventually led to where we are today) you do all means necessary to to protect your citizens.
Everyone talks about rights, but honestly, have any of us here had our rights violated personally post 9/11? With the exception of being forced to take my shows off on airlines I can honestly no regarding myself and just about everyone I know. The only rights I feel are being infringed upon is my right to pursue a paycheck without the gov't dipping a larger hand into it.
Regarding Mr. Dugan's comment that "rights are all we have," I want to ask to whom does he think this should apply? Because, like Mr. Carraway, I am completely disgusted by the equal AMERICAN rights given to NONAMERICAN citizens, particuarly known and/or suspected TERRORISTS! We will never survive, Mr. Dugan if we, as Americans, continue offering them such rights, when in turn, what they go ahead and do or try to do, is blow us up! How safe does anyone feel flying on an airplane, when terrorists are given these rights, or when there aren't even trained personnal on board protecting them, and then innocent, compassionate Americans have to take matters into their own hands for the safety and good of all in order to sabotage these terrorists!
I feel utterly nauseauted by it and I can only imagine how dire the situation really is, vs. what we, as the American public, are actually informed about. I bet if we knew of all the situations that were actually thwarted, we'd never want to "fly the friendly skies" again.
I don't know about you, but if rights are all we have, I feel having the right to remain planted firmly on the ground is about all I feel safe doing.
I guess I should defend the rights retort. Safety is not my concern. It is a figment of one's imagination. You could never feel as safe as you once were as a child. Democracy does not provide safety. There is a certain premise that we would not hurt each other since we value each other so highly to share a government. But America is great not for the safety, or the Pentagon, or its patriotism, but for the rights of each citizen in reference to the government.
These rights are what shape young Americans. They are in our most sacred mantras and they are the first things we pass on as children. I would like to see Americans to insure their rights over their safety, or soon enough, we will have to endanger all our safety in war to regain those rights. The more freedoms we lose, the more powerful the government becomes and less fearful of the people or its will, then we will change the word protection or safety for the word tyrrany.
And yes -- when someone is on our soil, we do not have to give them all the rights of citizens but at least a lawyer, a speedy trial, humane treatment must be part of it -- even for the most inhuman acts and barbarous terrorists. More importantly, all government actions should be lucid to the American public.
The concept of rights in this country has become misleading. The Patriot Act raised such a storm of controversy about US Citizens liberties yet the truth is very, very few of us had this "Fascist-Totalitarian Gov't" like decree affect us in any way. Yet it became a good buzz word for people in this country to decry about big government. "Big Brother is watching us MAN!!!" Ture liberties have been taken from us slowly and it did not start and end with the Bush Administration. And most of the time, we have willingly allowed it in the name of progress.
"Government should exist to protect people from other people. Where it oversteps its bounds is when gov't tries to protect people from themselves." You know who uttered that phrase? The Patron Saint of Republicans...Ronald Reagan. And I agree with this statement 100%. I am pro-choice, pro-gun (legally), pro-marijuana, pro-HGH, pro- gay marriage, pro-uncensored content on radio and TV, etc. I am also for smokers rights and the right for people to eat a trans-fat soaked hamburger if they choose. Too many agenda-driven people have gotten into the gov't head (and sadly alot of citizens as well) that the gov't has a right to order what consenting adult people can and cannot do in the privacy of their homes. You might not agree with what consenting adults do in their home , but as an American, you should support their right to do it. That has been lost.
Regarding the rights of terrorists...f*** them. I am sorry, but men deluded by religious fables who want to carry bombs into markets and planes containing people just trying to live their lives get no sympathy from me. An American citizen gets Miranda rights for an alledged crime...a foreign terrorist should consider themselves fortunate to still have their teeth prior to trial. God forbid we try to fight WW2 in the climate we do now. I would imagine the cry of "we must give them 48 hours notice to prepare" to the Germans before D-Day
I agree almost entirely, CJ. I hope Mr. Edmonds reads this point before the next time he attempts to defend China's censorship of the Internet.
America's survival is rooted in its patient belief in what the Founders believed in - that rights are inalienably human. They were able to say to George III that we exist as humans, not as properties of a state, and though many early Founders like John Adams, feared the sedition of outsiders, our country has consistently endured when it has cautiously listened to the voice nearest our heart - that we can trust one another when we believe that due process applies to us all.
The previous administration perverted this concept when we discovered that it held terrorist suspects in Guantanamo, in "black sites" throughout Europe, always under the business that we were being protected from real terrorists. We still do not know the full truth of any of that. We have ample evidence now that many of these individuals have been tortured, psychologically or physically. Even military testimony before Congress has asserted that torture does not even work as a deterrent to the enemy.
Terrorism is a disease that springs up from hopeless places, from among mostly young men who see no aim to their lives. The evil that infects them comes from recruiters within Fundamentalist organizations who profit from this desire among the young to die for God. How on Earth can we expect any of these young people to see any integrity in country that has abandoned the principles of due process - a country that does not even pretend to be what it has always claimed it was?
Your last paragraph seeks to jumble together all of the country's present issues with this idea that we have to stop "coddling" our enemies. It doesn't hold. I for one am unhappy that Obama has not been able to strike back against the Tea Party business that, I believe we will someday find, is nothing more than a front to protect the privileged of our society. I am angered even more that he has not addressed a way of closing Gitmo down. The more we scream about foreigners invading our shores, the more we sound like the voices of intolerance that we were taught as children that our nation, through patient, deliberate work had to silence in order for it to progress forward. If attacks on our nation provoke us to let rot the integrity of our Constitutional values, then we will die, not by the underwear of an insane man, by our own hands.
Carraway,
Your reading skills must be declining. I imagine it is from your excessive use of the internet, which apparently has the ability to deteriorate vision, while at the same time distort people's views. I made my opposition to China's censorship quite clear, multiple times. But unlike those of us who merely attempt to pass judgment on others, I simply tried to clarify their reasoning.
Everyone Else still reading this thread,
As for this issue, I'll admit I am quite torn. If we accept that our efforts against Terrorism really is war, then I can't help but perceive these individuals as enemy combatants rather than simply criminals. And while the Geneva Convention does protect war-time enemies' rights, it does not go as far as applying the laws of our country to those same combatants. A better scenario to imagine is if we had captured a 9/11 plotter prior to boarding one of the three planes, and we assumed he was not alone and that others were boarding planes throughout the country that may already be in midair with the same intentions, I imagine every citizen would have desired us to waive any and all rights to acquire information that could have saved thousands of lives. Right? Would anyone actually have argued that we should have maintained our ideals in the face of such an dire scenario? If so, these people are either far more patriotic than I am or far more naive.
However, while I see situations like this as warranted exceptions to the laws and procedures of our country, I can't help but concur with Mr. Roche's fear of the abuse of these exceptions. There were two editorials related to this issue published in the Inq. this weekend:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20100201_The_trivialization_of_terror.html
The other unfortunately was only in the print version of the currents. However, it addressed Mr. Roche's fears and disappointment quite well and summarized a story from Harper's Magazine about the deaths of three prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. According to Harper's the three prisoners, who have never been charged with a crime, were all murdered by a special interrogation unit of the Pentagon and their murders were then covered up as suicides. Here's a summary of the story, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705359323/Harpers-magazine-raises-questions-over-3-Guantanamo-Bay-detainee-deaths.html.
So, I can honestly say that my own personal response would be to throw miranda rights out the window, but this is the exact reason such laws exist, to prevent personal, impetuous decisions from being made. Right?
Can a brotha get "OK'd" to post?
Edmonds,
I re-read your comments on the Google and China post. Consider my last comment withdrawn. My apologies for assuming you were a secret communist.
Roche,
I appreciate your criticism of the conclusion to the above post, and I agree that bringing in separate issues clouded the first. However, my broader point was that at some junctures America can't always afford to be idealistic in the superlative when doing so threatens its very existence. I'm not arguing in support of torture. If McCain, a war veteran, political leader, victim of torture himself, is against it, then I am in no position to contradict his experienced view. However, the Underwear Bomber's situation concerns Miranda rights, and as Edmonds points out, if this is a war, Abdulmutallab does not deserve them. The American criminal court system is based on a presumption of innocence, a necessary presumption that protects our citizens from being wrongly convicted. But in this case, there is no shred of doubt regarding this man's crime, nay, act of war. Therefore why would we presume innocence? We cannot seek to protect foreign enemies from our own defense apparatus when we have a higher responsibility to protect our own citizens from disaster.
Due process and other rights come at a high price to society, therefore they must be earned. People should seek citizenship and positively contribute to America before they merit rights. I wish we could afford to take care of everyone in the human race they way we take care of our own, but it just isn't feasible in terms of defense, not to mention fiscal policy. And while the founders believed that all humans deserved these rights, they also held up the democratic process as the only way to ensure them. To extend Constitutional protections to those who have no stake in the American life or its elections invites abuse and portends weakness to our enemies.
Denying Miranda rights to terrorists is not an erosion of our Constitutional ideals, it is a strong defense of them. It shows the world we are willing to protect what we value the most, the lives of our citizens and the exercise of our liberties in a country free from the tyranny of terror that evil men would seek to impose on us.
On a side note, I think your assessment of the Tea Party movement, while shrewd, is only half correct. At its core, the movement is about taxes and disgust with a government in which both parties have failed. Sure, the wealthiest among us will be attracted to it and manipulate it to their advantage, since they are the most heavily taxed. However, the movement also contains a strong faction of middle class Independent voters. I believe the Mass. election showed us that it is not just rich Republicans who object to the current direction of our leaders, but the working class voters that Democrats have taken for granted for too long.
Nick,
I agree with yor last paragraph 100%. The Tea Partiers have nothing to do with this discussion on terrorism. The vast majority of them were middle class citizens who are fed up of seeing less and less of their paycheck every year due to mismanagement and abuse by the government. Why is it that any congressmen or senator gets a lifetime pension of $185K and the best of health care forfree even if they only serve one term? The Founding Fathers never envisioned politicans 4 life...yet that is what it has become for both sides of the aisle. The Right embraced the Tea Party concept only because it was an organized group protesting during the current administration...trust me, there are a lot of card carrying democrats amoung them who are tired of the same old, same old in Washington from Bush to Obama.