So you'd amend the Constitution to replace "persons" with "citizens"? 14th Amendment: "no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" That's pretty harsh. So your answer to the question would be "Yes".
no, I think he would answer "No" I'd say yes, they should have those rights. If they actually did it, it still shouldn't be hard to convict them. Lets do it, and do it right goddamnit.
Ugh. Step 1: Remove the rights of terrorists. Step 2: Expand the meaning of terrorism. Step 3: Remove the rights of movement leaders, journalists, etc. Surely, this will never happen in America.
So wait, you guys really think it makes sense that we can go to war (undeclared) with other countries, go to their country, take them out of their countries and put them into our prisons (because we say they're bad), and then you think on top of that, we don't have to subject them to the same legal procedures that our citizens enjoy? What kind of backward, Government-apologetic thinking is that. There's a REASON why our citizens enjoy the legal benefits they do, because they're you're only protection against tyrannical Government. What's the point of a legal system, where you're given a FAIR trial, if you don't extend those rights to those who need them the most? The very people who will be treated the most unfairly in our legal system, are naturally 'terrorists'. Of course, people will try and downplay Miranda rights, but the entire point of them, is to inform a detainee that they have the right to not incriminate themselves. That is probably one of the most profound benefits of our legal system--the right to not incriminate yourself. Here's an excellent video on why the right to not incriminate yourself (5th Amendment) is such a beautiful thing; [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc]YouTube - Dont Talk to Police[/ame] If you honestly think Miranda Rights should be forfeitted to 'terrorists', then I think you're a despicable human being (or you don't understand how important they are). Either way, educate yourself by watching the video above.
No. Where, precisely, in the Constitution do the Miranda rights appear? Miranda Rightw are an unconstitutional exercise in judicial activism.
Every U.S. citizen has a right to their Miranda Rights....No questions asked. Serial child rapists/ killers get their rights read to them and they are FAR worse than terrorists IMO.
Not what I said. However, while we're on the subject of amendments to the constitution, I think it's fair to say that not ALL amendments are perfect.. especially in retrospect. We sure had a fun time with the 18th amendment, didn't we? I think you misinterpreted what I said. The key word in my original statement was "deserve". I think murderers "deserve" to die, but I'm not an advocate of capitol punishment... but now we're getting off track with opinions and actual policy which is a futile journey because their will always be policy that some people disagree with. Also, I was trying to address the fact that "terrorist" kind of applies to a lot of very different people. Bin Ladin is a terrorist who is not a US citizen and wasn't in the country during his attack. Timothy McVeigh on the other hand was an American citizen arrested on US soil. The question posed by the OP needs to take a good look at what miranda rights really entail.
This is laughable. How is informing people they have the right to a public defender, and they also have the right to not incriminate themselves (5th Amendment), an 'unconstitutional excercise in judicial activism'. You have seriously got to be kidding.
The 5th amendment protects the witness from being forced into self incrimination, the Miranda warning simply tells them of that right. Just so we're clear, you dont support miranda rights for anyone. An observation, if I may: It seems you are quick to abandon the concept of "equality under the law" when you need to reaffirm your beliefs. Your defense for mistreating gay couples is that there shouldn't even be state intervention in marriage, and now your defense for mistreating suspected terrorists is the same; the state shouldn't be in the business of protecting our rights. Why shouldn't suspected terrorists be given the same rights as normal suspected criminals? It seems they just want to make it easier to incriminate suspects because a captured "terrorist" is a political win.
Ok, so you don't think non-citizens deserve the same rights as citizens? I'm not sure how I misrepresented what you said. That's the hugest issue; how do you define terrorist? If US citizens are no longer off limits to being suspected "enemy combatants" or "terrorists" without applicable rights to due process then we have sacrificed our liberties. The issue is being brought up because of the Times Square Bomber, who is a US citizen.
Of course they don't, but that doesn't stop them from getting them. If an illegal alien commits armed robbery, shoots at cops and is shot by the police, taken to the hospital, his life is saved and he's stitched up at no cost to him. Does he DESERVE this treatment? Of course not. But he receives it anyway. I don't have a problem with that. I agree. Any legislation that is confusing and/or a possible poderkeg of loopholes should be stopped or at the very least re-written. I believe that guy deserves Miranda rights. However, on the converse side of this argument, we can't say "Lets give ALL terrorists Miranda rights" because in doing so we extend them to people who definitely don't deserve them (i.e. Bin Laden). Is anyone honestly in favor of giving Bin Laden Miranda rights if he is caught?
There is nothing that currently exists within the Constitution that requires a person be read their rights upon arrest. Since such a requirement does not exist within the Constitution, it is prima facie absurd that it is a violation of one's rights to be informed of one's rights. Where, precisely, does the right to be read one's rights appear in the text of the Constitution? Congress and the states are empowered to regulate and structure the courts as they see fit, and if Congress and the many states wish to require their LEOs to inform an individual of certain things in order for statements made by that individual to be admissable as evidence, so be it. I support their decision to do so if that is what they wish to do. As it is now there are already plenty of exceptions to 'Miranda', including excited utterance, imminent danger, and the true gem-- your right against self incrimination doesn't imply a right not to incriminate others-- and so cops can question you without mirandizing you to obtain information about other persons' criminal activity. Those statements can't be used against YOU, but they can indeed be used against others. Let me be clear about what I am saying. There is no constitutional right that you be informed of your constitutional rights. Such a thing appears nowhere in the text of the document. I'd be glad to discuss the other issues you brought up in some other place (you are misunderstanding my position on pretend sodomite marriage, and I may have been unclear in the thread on that topic). EDIT: When I say I'm a strict constructionist, I mean it. :-D
There's a huge difference between positive & negative rights, the miranda one being negative and emergency medical treatment being positive. But I understand where you're coming from and I agree to disagree; I believe all humans in our borders deserve equal treatment of the law. How does Bin Laden deserve them any less than Shazad? I googled miranda rights on foreign soil and found this: Obama to give Miranda Rights to Terrorists, so it appears to be a flip flop that I was unaware of.
Ok. You're a strict constructionist. I think Miranda rights are read because we have alot of not so hip on the constitution type folks that have no clue what their rights are, or they can't read, or have some other type of learning disability so cops read them their rights for them. Make sense strict constructionist? It's one of the nicer things that cops do for people. Why take it away?
What do you mean? How is Miranda a negative right and EMT a positive right? Again, like I said - you mentioned the 14th amendment. Not part of the original constitution or the bill of rights. History has shown that not all constitutional amendments stick around.... Is Bin Laden a US citizen? No. Shahzad is. That's the difference.
I do not deny there are persons who are unaware of their rights. That is unfortunate. I support states requiring persons to be informed of their rights if the state wishes to do that, and I support the federal government having their LEOs inform persons of their rights if they wish to do that. However, what I am asserting is this: Within the Constitution there is not a right to be informed of your Constitutional rights. The matter of informing a person of these things is firstly done as a matter of legislated directives to LEOs, secondly is done as a matter of legislatively regulating the courts and evidence procedures, and thirdly primarily serves to ensure prosecutions are conducted both fairly and successfully. So it can be clearly seen that, since the matter is a legislative one, the Congress can legislate that a miranda reading need not take place for specific sorts of crimes (like, say, terrorism). Further, what we are dealing with is primarily NOT a law enforcement activity. The primary purpose of these interogations is to serve as an intelligence gathering activity. Since the purpose is intelligence gathering, and not gathering of evidence for prosecution, it seems rather obvious to me that no miranda reading is needed. Miranda rights relate to gathering information for prosecuting the individual, and the information is not being gathered for evidence purposes but for intelligence purposes. EXAMPLE: Let's take the Christmas day bomber. 200 people on the plane saw him try to light his balls on fire in order to blow up the plane. There is sufficienct evidence to ensure a successful prosecution. Any doubts that the wrong guy was caught? No, because verification can be made by simply checking his balls. Burned off? Right person. A confession is irrelevent. He is 'dead to rights' as they say (if he is going to be prosecuted in a civilian court, which he should not be, he should be held in military detention,but that is neither here-nor-there). So why inform him he has a "right to remain silent"? The interrogation is not for evidence purposes, but intelligence purposes. CONCLUSION: Simply put, if the interrogation is not being conducted to gather evidence to be used against the individual, no miranda reading is needed under the laws as they are currently structured.
The case for interrogation for intelligence gathering purposes is a really good point, but since we're talking about an American citizen in this recent incident in times square, any information collected by this citizen under interrogation will be used against him in a court of law. If he was not a citizen, then it's a no brainer, torture the hell out em' till he talks then give him some sort of millitary tribunal and sentence him. But as a citizen it's my opinion he has the right to remain silent and all the rest, and should be reminded of those rights. Any interrogation conducted for intellingence gathering purpose should be done by a prosecutor in a court of law. Luckly in this case, all fingers point towards this individual, but there may be future cases where the accused hands aren't so red.
It does not follow that any information collected under interrogation will be used against him in a court of law. That's precisely the point I'm making. Miranda rights pertain to gathering information for use in a court of law. If the information is being gathered for intelligence purposes, and not for a court of law, miranda is irrelevent. The various amendments to the Constitution involved with this debate (like the 5th) relate narrowly to self-incrimination of a crime, or due process of law within the courts. Of the statements are not going to be used as evidence against the person, or as part of a trial against the person, then miranda is irrelevent. To be clear, I am not advocating torture. What I am pointing out is that things like the 5th amendment related to criminal proceedings. If the statement is not going to be used against the individual, they have no 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. Though somewhat uncommon, prosecutors in criminal cases (with a judge approving) have even forced immunity on a person for anything they say while under oath (in order to obtain evidence related to some other crime). Which, btw, if you ever are in that situation, confess to absolutely everything you've ever done illegal. Finally, and I repeat an earlier point, no where in the Constitution is there a right to be reminded of your rights.