Get PJ Media on your Apple

Gingrich: ‘Terrible, Terrible Mistake’ to Read Bombing Suspect Miranda Rights

Former House speaker: Tsarnaev is part of a "national security" investigation, not a criminal one.

by
Nicholas Ballasy

Bio

April 29, 2013 - 4:08 pm

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told PJ Media that the Obama administration made a “terrible mistake” by treating Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as a “normal criminal” instead of a “terrorist,” calling the decision “irresponsible.”

“I think somebody who attempts to kill a lot of Americans and who clearly was influenced by an outside ideology should be treated as an enemy combatant. I have no doubt about that at all,” Gingrich told PJ Media on the red carpet of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

“I think it’s a huge mistake to read Miranda rights to a terrorist because in fact as he did, they just shut up and you want them to be able to be debriefed to find out who’s supporting them, who else is out there organizing, where did their money come from. It’s a terrible, terrible mistake to treat them as though they were a normal criminal when they’re a terrorist.”

Some Republicans have agreed with the Obama administration’s handling of the situation.

“He’s an American citizen, correct? Then he should be treated like any American citizen and that means due process, and yes civilian [court]. As much as it may be painstaking for the American people, it’s what’s right for all Americans,” Florida GOP Rep. Trey Radel told PJ Media on Capitol Hill last week.

Gingrich said Republicans like Radel are wrong, arguing that questioning Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is part of a “national security” investigation, not a criminal one.

“They’re wrong. Historically, they’re wrong,” Gingrich told PJ Media.

“The FBI was questioning him, the FBI wanted to continue questioning him, it was very irresponsible for that magistrate to walk in, insist on his Miranda rights and in effect cut off what is a national security investigation, not a criminal investigation.”

Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan said informing the suspect of his Miranda rights while the FBI was questioning him about the Boston attack was “dangerous” to the public.

“It’s confusing, it is horrible, [a] God-awful policy, and dangerous to the greater community,” he said. “And we have got to get to the bottom of this, and we’ve got to fix it right now.”

Nicholas Ballasy is a video journalist based in Washington, D.C. His interviews with prominent politicians and celebrities have been featured by media outlets including Fox News, NBC News, ABC News, Access Hollywood, Inside Edition, the Washington Post. Follow his work at www.nickballasy.com.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
I'm one of those weird contrarians who cares as much about the 1st and 2nd amendments as I do about the 4th, 5th and 6th.

Sometimes they are inconvenient. But nobody said freedom was easy.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I hope the bombers - and all who helped them - roast in hell for all eternity, but the one guy in custody so far is a U.S. citizen (the stupidity of giving him citizenship is a separate question). If being a U.S. citizen is going to mean anything to any of us as far as Constitutional protections are concerned then this piece of rat filth has to get his Constitutional protections. Newt might trying sitting down and refreshing his memory by reading the Bill of Rights again sometime.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (37)
All Comments   (37)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
It seems that neither party wants to follow the Constitution. Both would strip American citizens of their rights for "public safety" which, instead, endangers us all. If we allow the government to pick and choose, we have no rights at all.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The administration thinks he stole a loaf of bread from the carryout. He's no common criminal. He deserves the same end of life he gave to those three innocent bystanders.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The Public Safety Exception had essentially timed out. Any intelligence value from what Boat Boy had to say, is pretty minimal.

Once the Assistant US Attorney filed a criminal complaint, the Judge (Magistrate, really) had no choice. Rule 5 of the Federal Criminal Procedures requires that the defendant, for that is what he is now, be told his rights. zIf the judge had not done that, the whole trial could have been overturned, and Boat Boy would walk.

Like it or not Boat Boy is a US Citizen.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
They could have issued a warrant (for anything) and kept questioning him indefinately.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I like Newt because he thinks big and thinks differently than a lot of people on both sides of politics. In this case I agree with him that bomb boy shouldn't have Mirandaized, but under the public safety exception. Lawyers will argue anything, but if the Boston bombings don't qualify that statutory exception then I can't think of anything that does. If I were the FBI guy in charge I wouldn't have let the judge in and insist the exception be argued in a federal court. But there probably are no FBI agents with those kind of stones any more. I have serious reservations about treating him as an enemy combatant - the same as I did Padilla the US citizen the Bush administration held in indefinite detention after he was arrested flying into the US bent on terrorist actions. I think both these US citizens are guilty of treason.... belay that, High Treason. I think an enemy combatant is someone who is not a citizen like the Nazi infiltrators who were caught and executed in the FDR administration. I also think John Walker Lind was guilty of garden variety treason. I know treason has ceased to an operative category of legal thought, but Islamism and the terror it spawns is pushing us to reconsider the elemental, but disused, categories of thought upon which we have built civilized life. If there are those among us who would revert to savagery in the name of God or anything else we have tool resurrect whatever tools we need to prevail over them. Prediction we wont even hang this guy.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
lgude: You think these US citizens are guilty of treason. Well that settles that then doesn't it? Oh, we need the government to think so too? How about popular opinion? Since we're abolishing the Bill of Rights with Miranda, why not just chuck that "trial by jury" thingie too?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'm one of those weird contrarians who cares as much about the 1st and 2nd amendments as I do about the 4th, 5th and 6th.

Sometimes they are inconvenient. But nobody said freedom was easy.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I think they should have just conducted drone strikes on every single house in that cordoned off neighborhood. Hey, it's for safety and security. And people would have still been out on the streets shouting "USA! USA! USA!" too.

The fact that it's even controversial to apprise a criminal of rights bodes poorly for this country. What's next, bills of attainder?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'm not sure I understand under what conditions a judge can show up on your doorstep and initiate actions. Since when does a judge have any standing outside of his courtroom? What if he shows up at Macdonalds and starts reading everyone their rights?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The Judge did not initiate action. The action was initiated when the Assistant US Attorney filed the criminal complaint. That is the point at which the suspect becomes a defendant, and the Court knows he exists. Prior to that, the court has no jurisdiction unless the suspect seeks a writ of Habeas Corpus.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
A courtroom is wherever the officers of the court may find need of convening a court proceeding. Of course that is the most simplistic rendering of administrative poicies and law for the courts. :)
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Pretty hard to tell who the constitutional party is anymore. I thought it was the GOP-teaparty folks but that evidently is not the case today. What exactly about the constitution, International law and domestic statutory laws and authorization of armed conflict does this esteemed former congressman not understand?

The UN and congressional authorization for armed conflict in Afghanistan was limited to al Qaeda and the Taliban. He speaks to "enemy combatant" knowing full well the international laws of enemy combatant and, as it has been expanded to terrorism. Is he really advocating that those two Boston idiots are a part of, or agents of the Russian terrorist group which through their acts declared war on the U.S.? Gingrich doesn't seem to think before he speaks!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Anybody who mentions the constitution and international law in the same sentence deserves the nazi state they are destined to live in.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Well, it is only a "mistake" to Mirandize him IF the object were to get information. For instance, from what he did tell investigators, they found out they were being hunted when his sister-in-law called his brother to warn him. Not to ask him WHY his picture was on TV, to tell him the FBI is after him. Sure sounds like she wasn't surprised.

It's the same reason the FBI failed to find anything on the older brother twice after heads-ups from the Russians. They aren't allowed to look too hard at muslim extremism. All references to islam have been purged from the terror training handbook at Quantico. Any agent who started digging on someone in this protected category better find something concrete fast, or he would be in for trouble with the political appointees.

Incidentally, rather than try to spell these barbarians' names, I now follow Bob Belvedere's (Camp of the Saints) nicknames for them: "Speedbump & Gilligan."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I've been calling him Boat Boy. But Gilligan it is!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Gilligan was hapless and clumsy and lovable. The "Brothers Madabomgooff" were none of these things.

It was a rational, evil, well-thought-out action. They were not "radicalized" involuntarily. They had the choice to do it or not do it. They chose the former and it has yet to be finished. Little brother will have countless appeasers at his beck and call. He will cry, bemoan how America is to blame and the appeasers will buy it.

Self-hatred is a very odd phenomenon. But I liken it to the fifth-grader who tells his teacher, "I'll show you; I'll just fail this test, THEN you'll be sorry!"

The new normal? Well, I for one am NOT a victim. I prefer to not be one so I make choices that I'm responsible for. I don't blame others when the power gets cut off because I failed to pay the electric bill, or if I step in dog-poo. My fault.

I chose not to be radicalized as a young man when I was mad at the world. Instead I chose a path that focused my frustration on something productive.

Muslims should too.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Newt is a wanna-be tyrant who would deny the rights of citizenship if it was expedient.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Prove it.

We are seeing a nazi like military takeover of our country (see Boston) and you have the nerve to point fingers at someone who was speaker of the house at a time when they actually balanced the budget?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
While he should be praised for his work to balance the budget, denying American citizens their rights is akin to a "nazi like military takeover of our country".
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All