Precedence doesn’t hold with Christmas Day bomber
I was drawn to read Matt Apuzzo’s article “Unexpected controversy on right to remain silent” [News, Feb. 4]. Referring to Sen. Susan Collins statement that the right to have a lawyer applies to U.S. citizens and not to foreign terrorists, Apuzzo says: “Collins is wrong. Immigrants, even those who entered the country illegally, are guaranteed lawyers in the United States when they commit a crime.”
Leaving aside the minor — but obvious points — that terrorists entering this country can hardly be classified as “immigrants” and the fact that those detained as “enemy combatants” are entitled to a lawyer at trial in military tribunals, Apuzzo states as a fact that the Constitution guarantees enemy combatants trials in civilian courts.
That is the heart of the controversy; It is not settled because he says so. William Buckley was known for responding “By whom and to whose satisfaction.” when told “It has been shown that …”
Apuzzo goes on at great length citing cases where terrorists were tried in civilian courts. This doesn’t show it was the right thing to do. That’s what this is about. I do not believe Apuzzo is qualified to explain this part of the Constitution.
— Ron Kroeger, Redmond
Obama, not FBI, responsible for ‘botched’ interrogation
Matt Apuzzo is just another example of a long list [of reporters] who graphically illustrates the Obama administration’s ill-conceived resolutions to lead this country when confronted by increased risks of terror — and instead opt for a utopian view of civil rights.
It is incompetent and ill-conceived because the Miranda rule is not a constitutional requirement — only one conceived by the majority of the Supreme Court. The court-made rule had been misapplied for decades and it has become too late to remove it.
Additionally, a political decision to subject our citizens to the risk of annihilation merely to afford anyone — citizen or otherwise — the right to remain silent, when an exigent emergency is at hand, has never been the rule — constitutional or otherwise — but a well-recognized exception.
Nor has it been the exclusive responsibility of the FBI or any other agency to interrogate a terrorist. The decision to make it the sole responsibility is another example of the incompetence of this administration, which should be able to anticipate the investigation, detention, arrest and interrogation of terrorists both inside and outside this country’s borders, as well as on and off the battlefield.
— Elliott E. Alhadeff, Sammamish