Here's a bit of a surprise: John McCain, who wants to close Gitmo and who, I'd say, demagogues on the issue of waterboarding and hard interrogation techniques from time to time, argues that the Times Square bomber doesn't have Miranda rights. ("I'm J. D. Hayworth, and I approved McCain's message.") And much of the righty blogosphere responds, Like heck he doesn't.My reaction was much the same as many on the right. Miranda rights are not something you can take away from citizens, regardless of how despicable their acts. Although it is puzzling to think an American citizen would do something like this and we certainly want to get all the information we can, Faisal Shahzad is a naturalized citizen and that gives him access to all the same rights I have. I don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. When we start making exceptions to rights for citizens we head down a road I don't think we really want to take.
McCain seems to find himself on the wrong side of way too many issues. It's a reminder that if he's returned to the Senate he will be unpredictable and inconsistent in his beliefs.
Posts
1 comment:
I'll go a step farther.
The "Miranda" thing does not convey rights.
What ever rights you have after having been "read your rights" you had before the reading.
The reading does not grant rights, it instructs, informs, or reminds of rights the listener had before, during and after the reading.
What are these rights?
They rights our Constitution says come from God, which means we don't need "Mirandizing" or even the Constitution to have the rights.
Does this mean an enemy combatant has the same rights as I have?
Yes, if we believe what we say we do.
But but but but.....
What differs and is man-made is the process used. Life is not easy and sometimes we have make hard decisions that might have unfortunate outcomes.
But in the end we will know who was right.
Post a Comment