0 connection? >> reporter: fox news was told that investigators are exploring potential links between the older brother tamerland and an extremist group. this is based on his travels as well as the contents of his you tube travel. among the videos deleted from the play list were links to another extremist group which is under the umbrella of the teamist caucuses emrate. investigators are looking for related e-mail traffic and direct person to person contact and evidence of training. in 2012011 the group was desiga terrorist organization. it received a similar label from the al-qaeda and taliban captions committee that same year. the russian government asked the fbi to investigate the older brother because he was "a follower of radical islam and a strong believer and had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the united states to join what the are you shawns called an unspecified points to a fundamental problem with thinking about mir randiesing. do we want a prosecution or an investigation to determine how deep the terrorist links might be and whether there were additional plans for terror activity. an awful load of weapons that the two possessed. the situation with the travel to russia. all miranda means and judge you know this, if there is a statement given by the defendant before he is mirandaizeed it may not be admissible. an evidencery point. affirmative defense to the admissibility of a piece of evidence. they already made statements to the person they carjacked saying they did this. i'm not really wore relationshipped about prosecution here. this is a perfect example of when serious consideration should be he given to enemy combatant status and needs to be looked at seriously. >> judge jeanine: the obama administration has indicated they are going through the public safety exception but you all indications are that they want to prosecute this guy in >> going to be evaluated depending on how much information the high asset interrogation team gets from the suspect. the bigger question, judge jeanine is how do we value our constitutional rights in this country. obviously we are afraid. obviously we are in terror. but do we pick ourselves up or throw the constitution down and say okay, now we are going have military police and military authorities making dehe sixes about criminal justice matters in the country. that is a robust question. >> judge jeanine: are you saying peter then because he is a citizen that he now has more rights than someone who is an enemy combatant in another country? >> the most contemptible citizen in the united states today but you he is a citizen of the united states of america and we have a framework by which people are judged. by which people guilt or innocence is ajudged. i believe the exception should go forward. i don't care if it goes forward for 30 days if they interrogate h him for 30 days but at some point i believe he belongs in the federal court because if he doesn't go into the federal court these terrorists have won and that is what i don't want. >> judge jeanine: you believe that the military tribunal is not the way to go. michael sullivan i will go back to you for another men now. richard reid prosecuted in the federal court. how long was his sentence? >> he received a life sentence. he received the maximum sentence that the law provided for. but i agree with jay. i think that our government needs to determine whether or not there is any national security, national defense benefit by identifying him as an enemy combatant and if it is, if there is then they should identify him, designate him as an enemy combatant and get as much intelligence as we possibly can from him. if they make a determination that there is none then obviously he should be prosecuted. >> judge jeanine: gentlemen, stand by. we are coming back. later, how far can the government go to get answers in their interrogation of the boston bombing suspect?