Judge Miriam Goldman Cederbaum sentenced the Times Square Bomber, Faisal Shahzad to life in prison. No one in the room blinked.  The sentence surprised no one.  In the process, however, it seems that everyone forgot about a little quirk in Shahzad’s case that stood out and compelled an answer.  Whatever happened to the two weeks?

At sentence Shahzad was every inch the defiant terrorist, or as much of a terrorist as a guy who couldn’t pull off the stunt.

He asked the judge for 5 or 10 minutes, then launched into a soliloquy that was at times rambling, at times threatening and delivered with the crinkly-eyed grin of a man who acted as if he could not be happier than where he was at that moment.

“This is but one life,” he said. “If I am given a thousand lives, I will sacrifice them all for the sake of Allah, fighting this cause, defending our lands, making the word of Allah supreme over any religion or system.”

Sort of the terrorist version of Nathan Hale.  It was a nice bluff, given that he accomplished nothing beyond showing himself to be a disaffected, bumbling fool.  But then he raised his wild card.

“On the second day of my arrest, I asked for the Miranda,” he said, referring to the required notification of his right to counsel. “And the F.B.I. denied it to me for two weeks” and threatened his wife and children, he said. The judge, prosecutors and defense lawyers stayed silent as Mr. Shahzad, who has mounted no substantive defense in his case and who pleaded guilty to all charges against him on June 21, continued to speak. His lawyer, Philip L. Weinstein, had no comment on the statements after the hearing.

You may recall that the government, rather than deliver Shahzad to court to be arraigned following his arrest, decided to hang out for a while instead.  Shahzad, the terrorist who would sacrifice a thousand lives, was a talker.  At the time, the government insisted, and it appeared to be supported by his assigned counsel, that Shahzad was on board with the government, happy to blab away.

While it certainly appears clear that the government didn’t need his statements to make their case, or at least it was clear enough to Shahzad to plead guilty, that doesn’t do much to answer the question of what our government was doing holding him rather than bringing him to court.  If the linchpin is a solid case, does this mean that all rules about bringing defendants before a neutral magistrate for arraignment are history?

We’ll never know.  The missing two weeks, and its legal significance, will remain missing in perpetuity.  Except that the next defendant with the word “terrorist” attached to his name may go missing for two weeks.  Or three.  Or a month.  And then some other defendant, perhaps with the words “drug lord,” may go missing.  Or maybe they will call him a “drug terrorist.” 

The question isn’t answered because Faisal Shahzad pleaded guilty.  That too is curious, given that his two weeks of talking, during which the government claims he provided all sorts of really important information about other terrorists and their plans, should have come up at sentence.  Cooperation, anyone? 

Though there was no suppression hearing, the benefit of information provided by Shahzad to the government at sentence should have been shouted across the courtroom at sentence.  Hey, give the guy the credit he’s due.  He talked, and he should get something for that.  He provided substantial assistance, so where’s the give-back?

Instead, Shahzad got the sentence he would have gotten anyway.  He copped a plea, but received no benefit.  He talked, but received no benefit.  So as was asked at the time Faisal was spilling his guts, what’s the message? 

Not even the rosiest of rat-lawyers would suggest that Faisal will get a medal for the good things he’s given the government.  But then, since his charges carry life in prison, there’s a broad spectrum of reduced sentences available to him.  Will his cooperation serve him well?   Will a sentencing judge, upon reading his good works, reduce his 198 year sentence to 188? 

Of course, Faisal may not be cooperating for the sake of a benefit at sentence.  It’s always possible that a guy who wanted to blow up Times Square on one day wants to fulfill his duty as concerned citizen to the American government by helping to thwart terrorism the next.  People have changes of heart all the time.  At least that’s what they say when they take the witness stand, after they’ve flipped.

The silence at sentence about the real issues raised by this case, and Shahzad’s conduct, was both deafening and perplexing.  Why was nothing said about this?  It’s now buried forever.  Will the next “terrorist” talk when there’s nothing to be gained?  Will the next “terrorist” be held incommunicado rather than be brought for arraignment, being made to talk?  Will the next “terrorist” even be a terrorist?  Nothing was learned from Shahzad’s sentence.