There’s much debate over whether that yahoo who tried to blow up a car in NYC a bit ago should have been read his Miranda rights before he was arrested, lest he clam up.
The question is moot — he’s singing like a bird — in this case the issue has brought up, yet again, the debate over whether terror suspects should be accorded the rights of others of us.
The letters to the NYTimes go over some of the salient problems (click) but there is one arguement, and it is the best, for why any and all terror suspects should be given their full rights, including attorneys, silence, jury trials, the whole ball of wax.
How do we know that really is a terrorist?
OK, one of the letters in this list hints at this. The idea that the government can deny someone rights others have by accusing that person of being a terrorist is a loophole a weasely attorney could drive a cement truck through. But it’s more than a loophole. It is a presumption that the government will not lie to us about who it has arrested.
Anyone here ok with assuming the government, and its agents, will never lie to us? Let’s see a show of hands.
Yeah, thought so.
I don’t care who they are, I want the government to prove to me that they have the right guy. I don’t want that guy tortured into an admission, I don’t want him tricked into saying something, I want it proved.
Yeah yeah, I know, what if he knows a bomb is going to go off and we could torture it out of him?
Quit watching so much TV. If he knows there’s a bomb, he knows how long he has to stay quiet, he will, end of story. And even if it would work, are you sure you want to give the government that kind of power?
I’m not. I get called a liberal by Tea Party types all the time. You know, those guys who think government is too big, to powerful, to mean and nasty and not to be trusted.
Do I hear them calling for Miranda rights? Nope. They seem fine with giving the goverment they dispise the power of life and death just by saying someone, anyone they choose, is a terrorist.