There are already countless wrinkles to the Times Square attempted bombing case and coming prosecution of accused bomber Faisal Shahzad, and more are certain to emerge. No doubt some officials will ratchet up the "homegrown terrorism" fear-mongering. Others (like Senator Lieberman) will propose offensive limitations on naturalization. And some may call for increased video surveillance (even though the cameras in Times Square aren't what stopped the bombing) or more body-scanners in airports and more "no-fly" lists (even though the "no-fly" list failed miserably at stopping Shahzad from getting through security checkpoints and boarding a flight to Dubai just before his arrest).
One especially disappointing wrinkle is the debate over whether Shahzad should have been read his Miranda warnings. Unfortunately for those lampooning the Obama administration for "giving terrorists rights," reading Miranda rights is totally optional.
Here's a brief refresher: It is not just something fictional cops do on Law & Order. Mirandizing a suspect is a constitutionally-mandated practice required to preserve one of our most fundamental constitutional rights (the privilege against self-incrimination) and is often required to preserve a criminal case against a suspect.
Whether or not an American citizen arrested in the United States for a crime committed on American soil possesses the privilege against self-incrimination is not up for discussion, at least, not according to the Fifth Amendment (where are the "strict constructionalists" and "originalists" when I need them??) and over 40 years of Supreme Court precedent. In the world of unending Law & Order re-runs and spin-offs, where we watch perps being arrested hourly on TNT marathons, we hear the words of the Miranda warnings so often that most Americans can probably recite them from memory:
You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you desire an attorney and cannot afford one, an attorney will be obtained for you before police questioning.
But these words are not just words. The Supreme Court held in Miranda v. Arizona that the words, now colloquially called "the Miranda Warnings" are required to preserve the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and the right to an attorney. Chief Justice Warren eloquently wrote:
The Fifth Amendment privilege is so fundamental to our system of constitutional rule and the expedient of giving an adequate warning as to the availability of the privilege so simple, we will not pause to inquire in individual cases whether the defendant was aware of his rights without a warning being given. . . .To summarize, we hold that when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized.
The meaning of Miranda warnings appears lost on too many of our elected officials (and even more disturbingly, some law enforcement officials) who seem to think that government officials can pick and choose whether or not to afford constitutional rights to a certain class of suspects. Senator John McCain thinks the constitutionally-mandated Miranda warnings should not be a priority:
When we detain terrorism suspects, our top priority should be finding out what intelligence they have that could prevent future attacks and save American lives . . . Our priority should not be telling them they have a right to remain silent.
Senator Christopher Bond, too, wants to abandon that pesky Fifth Amendment:
We’ve got to be far less interested in protecting the privacy rights of these terrorists than in collecting information that may lead us to details of broader schemes to carry out attacks in the United States.
Huh? Who said anything about "privacy rights"? I know many conservatives disdain the notion of a constitutional right to privacy, but this is about a completely different, well-settled Constitutional amendment.
In a constitutional democracy in which we uphold the Constitution as the law of the land and give the Supreme Court the power to interpret it, government officials do not get to choose when it is a good idea to afford American citizens their rights.
Glenn Beck agrees. (Three words never more rarely written on Daily Kos):
He’s a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens . . . He has all the rights under the Constitution. We don’t shred the Constitution when it’s popular.
The idea of denying Shahzad Miranda warnings - or any other constitutionally-guaranteed rights - is so ridiculous that Glenn Beck (the man who asked Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison if he was working for the enemy) was prompted to speak up and say "enough."
Ironically, reading Shahzad Miranda warnings - after which, all reports say, Shahzad continued to cooperate - will almost certainly assist the Obama administration in gaining a criminal conviction that could take Shahzad off the streets for a lifetime. Had the government failed to read him Miranda warnings, the evidence obtained in questioning Shahzad could have been suppressed, severely hampering any criminal case against him, if not making it impossible. Thankfully, the Administration made the right call and gave Shahzad Miranda warnings, and in New York City, in the dreaded "ticking time-bomb" scenario, following the rule of law when it comes to Miranda warnings will likely make us safer.