Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab goes on trial Oct. 11 on charges of trying to blow up a plane on Christmas Day, 2009 with a bomb that he his in his underwear. A leading piece of evidence against him are incriminating statements he gave to police before any Miranda warnings were read. Are these statements admissible in court?
On Thursday, a federal judge in Detroit ruled that prosecutors could use these statements against Mr. Abdulmutallab.
To be sure, I don't know what kind of evidence the government has against Mr. Abdulmutallab, so in the whole scheme of things, this ruling might have little effect on the outcome of the case. But did anybody honstly think that the Constitution stood a chance against the war on terror?