home

Abdulmutallab Cooperating in Airline Failed Bomb Case

This should be no surprise. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is continuing to cooperate and provide information on the failed Christmas Day airline bomb plot. His lawyer is facilitating the negotiations. This is what often happens in criminal cases when a probable life sentence is on the table. Or, in the case of accused Mumbai co-conspirator David Coleman Headley, a death sentence.

All those Miranda fears are for naught. Criminal defendants get lawyers. Lawyers review the evidence. If the case is strong and the evidence likely to be ruled admissible, they consider plea bargains that involve cooperation. It happens daily in courtrooms across America. Terror cases are no different. What throws a wrench into the works is when law enforecment officers fail to abide by the rules and violate a suspect's rights. Then evidence can be thrown out and there's less incentive to make a deal. If they just followed the rules, it would be so much better for everyone.

< The Budget Increases for the War on Crime and Terror | Michael Jackon's Doctor in LA, Criminal Charges Expected >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Great post (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 05:34:52 PM EST


    thank you! (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 05:39:24 PM EST
    Examine your premise (2.00 / 0) (#9)
    by diogenes on Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 10:35:45 PM EST
    If terrorists are tried in civilian courts, then not Mirandizing them leads to having evidence thrown out and creates all kinds of problems, as you say.  Of course, in this particular case "res ipsa loquitor", as I think you lawyers say. I don't think that his own confessions really add anything to the case that one hundred witnesses can't testify to.
    If terrorists were to be tried in front of a military tribunal where Miranda were a non-issue, then the person would still have a motivation to cooperate because ALL the evidence would count (no matter what), and the person would have even more motivation to cop a plea because he would know that there would be a much smaller chance of some sort of rogue OJ type jury ignoring overwhelming evidence.

    And how many "rogue juries" (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 11:27:39 PM EST
    do you think you could find, if you tried real hard, in the U.S. that would ignore the evidence for somebody who was caught in the act of trying to blow up an airplane, hmmmm?

    Try harder for an excuse, please.

    Parent

    His confession is not needed (none / 0) (#16)
    by diogenes on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 07:46:30 PM EST
    If the conviction is so sure, then the police can give up Mirandizing him (it is a right allowing him to not give evidence against himself) if the police think that perhaps in the heat of the moment he might say something useful (e.g. whether there were more suicide attacks in the air, as on 9/11, or whether this was a lone bomber).

    Parent
    "If they just followed the rules" (none / 0) (#3)
    by Zorba on Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 05:43:11 PM EST
    %%nor