Michelle Malkin » “Terror on the tarmac”

“Terror on the tarmac”

By Michelle Malkin • November 20, 2007 11:00 AM

There are risks and costs to being a John Doe. Vigilance against terrorism in an age of political correctness will open you up to lawsuits, CAIR witch hunts, public recriminations–or worse. You can stand up or submit. At PJM, Annie Jacobsen “has the harrowing tale of what happened when a Good Samaritan was transformed into a terror suspect. Required reading for Thanksgiving travelers:”

Jerry Wynn, of Jacksonville, Florida, considers himself a good American citizen. He believes the War on Terror to be real and important and he’s willing to accept certain inconveniences when he flies on commercial planes. He’s got two adorable kids whom he coaches at sports on the weekend. He thinks of their safety, and the safety of his wife, whenever any of them fly.

But what happened to Jerry Wynn on American Eagle Flight 4518 on September 21, 2007 has forced him to consider what the War on Terror means to his own, individual citizen’s rights. He wants others to know it could just as easily happen to them. And if it did, what would you do?

The rest of the story is here.

The ACLU doesn’t have the time, resources, or inclination to assist Jerry Wynn. Maybe there’s a pro-national security law firm willing to go to bat for an innocent bystander looking out for his country.

Posted in: Annie Jacobsen, John Doe

Printer Friendly

comments (100)

trackbacks (2)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#177736

On November 21st, 2007 at 4:12 pm, Archon said:

Your Miranda Rights only need to be read to you after you have been arrested. Arrested, not detained. There is a difference.

Acheron,

Minor point, because I am not about to second guess the FBI in this situation, especially given your excellent defense of them, but the statement above is not accurate. I am grossly oversimplifying this, but Miranda rights have to be given when a suspect is subject to custodial interrogation, not when he or she is formally arrested, i.e. more or less when that person is not free to go and that person is being questioned

I was trying to point out the last point at which a suspect NEEDS to be Mirandized. The point of giving a Miranda warning is to make anything said by the suspect admissable in court. When you have arrested a person, an officer’s purpose should be to assist the prosecuters as much as possible by collecting admissable evidence.

A person in “custody” does not NEED to be Mirandized, but if you don’t Mirandize them, you won’t be able to use anything they say in court. In theory, an officer can Mirandize you the second he pulls you over, just to make sure everything in your conversation is admissable in court. Or, if they plan on not asking you any questions at all, they could not ever Mirandize you. It is not uncommon for people to never had a Miranda warning read to them by the time they get in front of a judge.

That’s my take on it. I am neither a law enforcement officer nor a lawyer. My knowledge of the law comes from working, training, and drinking with law enforcement officers, and paying lawyers.

But back on topic: FBI should have apologized. It was rude not to. But being rude isn’t against the law.