Don’t Fault Miranda, Fault His Citizenship

By
May 4, 2010

Many on the Right might disagree, but within our current system, I don't think it's a good idea to start making carve outs like this on Miranda. I doubt they would survive a court challenge. Naturalized, or not, the government made him a citizen. That affords him the same Constitutional protections we all enjoy. Looking at that process, as opposed to making ad hoc decisions that impact Constitutional protections might be the wiser move.

“Don’t give this guy his miranda rights until we find out what it’s all about,” McCain added.

Please consider supporting RiehlWorldView with a small donation
, by shopping at Amazon via our Associate link in the sidebar or by re-distributing our content across the Web with the options below. Thank you.


Comments:
  1. JustOneMan says:

    The Idiot in the White House just gave a live statement claiming that “we prevented another terrorist attempt”. The government prevented NOTHING…two dumb Moooooslims who failed to ignite their underwear or SUV is NOT prevention it’s called LUCK!
    Millions of barrels of oil head towards our shore and several hundred thousand Americans are losing their jobs each month…and King Barry does nothing!
    “Good job Nappy”

  2. itsMike2Cents says:

    The irony of a guy who posts as ‘JustOneMan’ blaming anything and everything on just one guy…

  3. JustOneMan says:

    The irony of a guy who posts as ‘itsMike2Cents” blaming anything and everything on just one guy…BUSH!!!

  4. were says:

    You’re becoming a pansy RINO, Dan.

  5. Simply declare this guy an “enemy combatant” and ship his sorry hide down to G’tmo along with a water pail and a towel.
    Refer to FDR and Ex Parte Quirin for what should come after that.
    No, it doesn’t matter that he is a US citizen…yes, it’s been done before.

  6. Liberty60 says:

    As much as I disagree with Dan on most things, I have to say he is right here- those militia folks arrested last month were given Miranda rights, Tim McVeigh was given Miranda rights- the Constitution was designed exactly to protect scumbag criminals, and like it or not, someday any one of us could find ourselves needing its protection.

  7. Sorry, I’m going to part company with Dan here. The suspect should NOT receive Miranda protection for this incident.
    One of the tests of Miranda application is whether the activity is considered criminal:
    “…Under the exclusionary rule, a Miranda-defective statement cannot be used by the prosecution as substantive evidence of guilt. However, the Fifth Amendment exclusionary rule applies only to criminal proceedings. In determining whether a particular proceeding is criminal, the courts look at the punitive nature of the sanctions that could be imposed. Labels are irrelevant. The question is whether the consequences of an outcome adverse to the defendant could be characterized as punishment. Clearly a criminal trial is a criminal proceeding since if convicted the defendant could be fined or imprisoned. However, the possibility of loss of liberty does not make the proceeding criminal in nature…”
    Terrorism, whether internal or external, is not and should not be a CRIMINAL act, rather it’s an act of aggression or an act of war. It should be treated as such, and therefore suspects are NOT required to receive Miranda protection. That the suspect is (or is not) a citizen in trumped by the act of aggression.
    This is how it SHOULD be.
    One of the things Eric Holder and Mr. Obama have done as part of their “Pussification of America Doctrine” is further blur the lines between criminal and hostile acts. And this is why we are here today – a nation hobbled from within by Socialism and Liberalism.
    You got this one wrong Dan.
    As always, one man’s opinion – YMMV
    -LTB

  8. JayJay says:

    Can’t say that I like the idea of giving this guy Miranda rights but have to agree with Dan. He was made a citizen of the United States (Dem admin) and whether we like it or not, is entitled. If we do not give him Miranda, then who is to say that the next to not get Miranda wouldn’t be you or me? Besides, I want there to be no loopholes this guy or his lawyers can slide through and by not giving him Miranda, that is a certainty, not just a possibility. May not like it, but it is the right thing to do.
    LTB- Perhaps you are right and it should be an act of war or aggression, but as the law stands, it is not and we can’t change the rules to include this case. Perhaps in the future they will change the law and perhaps they should but would still exclude this muzzie. If they change the law as you suggest, then who is to say where the cut off point will be as to what they consider an act of war or aggression? Perhaps it will be able to be construed to include those that speak out against the government in any way.

  9. Owain says:

    Since he is a naturalized American citizen, by all means, Mirandize him. However, I do think that in the case of naturalized citizens, that which can be granted should also be able to be withdrawn, via due process. I don’t know if that is possible under our current system of laws, but in the case of terrorist jihadi bastards, if it isn’t, it ought to be.

  10. JayJay says:

    I may not like it but have to agree with Dan on this one. He was granted US citizenship and as a citizen, Miranda is part of the package. We need to do it right and not give him or his lawyers any loopholes they can slide through.
    Lieberman is now calling for his citizenship to be revoked… rather like closing the gate after the sheep are out running amok over 5 or 6 counties. Even with that, he was a citizen at the time of the attack and needs Mirandized.
    LTB – Perhaps it should be considered an act of war or aggression, but then what all could be construed to fall under that? Perhaps any act of speaking out against the government and then where would we be?

  11. JayJay says:

    Teste
    Posts aren’t posting

  12. JayJay says:

    Will try again.
    Agree with Dan, Mirandize him. By the book. Why even bother rescinding his citizenship only to ship him home so he can fight again another day? Change the law about things like this? Then who is to say that even speaking against the government wouldn’t fall under that new law? He is one that should never have been made a citizen in the first place but now that he is he must be treated as one.

  13. Martin says:

    McCain really doesn’t care about the constitution.
    Enemy combatants deserve a bullet in the head.
    US citizens on US soil get full rights, even though I would argue that miranda was a bad ruling.

  14. iconoclast says:

    Enemy combatants, even if they are us citizens or legal residents, can be tried and executed using non-judicial proceedings. This was true in WWII, the Civil War and is true now. Once Faisal decided to attack the USA as part of muslim jihad using training (poor training fortunately) received in Pakistan, he stopped deserving the benefits of citizenship.
    Just as Awlaki will be killed by the USA without any benefit counsel or court even though Awlaki is a US citizen. He is a self-avowed enemy who doesn’t get a pass because of his citizenship. The same is true for Faisal.

  15. joyMc says:

    The fact that a person can go through the process of becoming a citizen one year then go through the process of a terrorist act the next only proves one thing. The guy can chew gum and walk; and the guy is a liar. Big surprise.

  16. Owain says:

    “Why even bother rescinding his citizenship only to ship him home so he can fight again another day?”
    Rescind his citizenship if it can be demonstrated that he sought that citizenship under fraudulent circumstances (intent to commit jihad) so that he can’t simultaneously wage war on the U.S. while claiming the protections afforded to citizens.
    Then, once convicted, hang him. That precludes the ability to fight again another day.

  17. joyMc says:

    I am not in favor of any special treatment for this guy but it appears he needed to be read his rights or he really could not be convicted. Or any conviction would be at risk of being overturned on appeal.

  18. joyMc says:

    Great name Mr Bags. Re Terrorism, “whether internal or external, is not and should not be a CRIMINAL act, rather it’s an act of aggression or an act of war. It should be treated as such, and therefore suspects are NOT required to receive Miranda protection. That the suspect is (or is not) a citizen in trumped by the act of aggression.”
    Assuming no trial has yet taken place, and no conviction yet obtained, and the entire event is in the investigative stage; is there any clear line between terrorism and just really bad deeds, that can always be readily identified. I know that some terrorists have done bombing but is a bomb always an act of terrorism? I am not sure which side of the fence I come down on. Are there acts so vile and terrifying that under all circumstances the suspects should be treated differently from run of the mill suspects? I dont know. If the answer is yes, how do we decide how bad is bad enough? Some terrorists simply shoot people. Other terrorists have used other means which coincidentally also get used by run of the mill bad guys.

  19. Rob says:

    Treating a citizen terrorist as a citizen with rights is ironic.
    Still all the other rights seem to be under attack.
    The danger is in giving all these precious rights away to
    illegals and foreign terrorists. How strange is that.

  20. joyMc says:

    Miranda V Arizona, 1966 case, The supreme court decision held that a suspect must be informed of these 5th amendment related rights to not self incriminate and 6th amendment right of counsel prior to being questioned.
    The compulsory reading of so called Miranda rights is not part of the constitution as some on the evening news imply. It is the courts interpretation of a prisoners rights as pertains to constitutional rights. It gives suspects additional rights not even mentioned in the constitutional text. That being the right to expect certain information or education from the cops. In my view this is grossly inconsistent.
    In the case of any individual committing an illegal act it is always held that not being aware of its illegality is no excuse for doing the act. Ignorance does not equal innocence. In the case of confessing to that illegal act; not knowing the law (5th amendment, 6th amendment et al); is an excuse or potential reason to totally cancel that confession. In effect the cops are held to a far higher standard than the suspects. The cops are obligated to educate the suspects. Nothing in the constitution itself obligates the cops to educate suspects.
    We have had this in our culture long enough that people assume it is a part of the constitution itself. I believe crooks get far too many such judicially invented rights. But at this time it is what it is and we have to live with it.