New York, May 5 (ANI): The debate over whether terrorists should be treated at par with criminals or whether they should be considered enemy combatants has erupted once again following the arrest of Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad and the reading out of his Miranda rights as is constitutionally guaranteed to every criminal in US.
The White House has said that Shahzad was first grilled by law enforcement agencies in an exception to Miranda. Shahzad remained cooperative through the interrogation said officials.
However, those who believe that terrorists should not have the same entitlements as other criminals were unimpressed by this rationale.The Supreme Court has held there's no constitutional obligation to give him Miranda rights," Representative Pete King told the New York Daily News, referring to the right to remain silent and get a lawyer.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs scoffed at the idea investigators were passing up valuable intelligence. "The insinuation somehow that that is not the case," Gibbs said.
And he mocked politicians who downplayed the fact that Shahzad is American. "Some of the comments have been curious," Gibbs said.
"One of the comments was, 'I know he's an American citizen, but still...' A unique viewpoint," he countered.
King is among those who hold an opposing view, he argued that if a terror suspect is found not guilty, authorities could simply let him go.
"You can't always be operating in a time of war on the presumption that you might be wrong, especially when you're not inflicting any permanent harm on the guy," King said. (ANI)