No Miranda Right for NYC Bombing Suspect

One of the down sides of sharing a blog with a lawyer is the fear of persecution for being an “Outhouse Attorney”.

So, with full knowledge that John Doe, esq.  may well prove me wrong in this matter, I submit the following.  (At least I know John won’t take issue with me dissing Dan Riehl. – LTB)

This is cross-posted at my other site – Viewed From The Right.

Over at Riehl World View, Dan is musing failure to provide the Times Square bomb suspect his Miranda rights amounts to a “carve-out” and minimizes the rights of an American citizen.

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.

John McCain was quoted as saying:

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

Dan, with due respect, McCain got this one right, and you’re dead wrong.

The suspect should NOT receive Miranda protection for this incident. Especially in light of subsequent arrests of other in Pakistan in relation to this event. Allow me to explain why…

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 against a nation, or an act of War.  It should be treated as such, and therefore suspects should NOT enjoy Miranda protection.  That the suspect is (or is not) a citizen should be trumped by the nature of the action.

Following this logic,  Timmothy McVeigh should not have been Miramdized (IMHO).  Nor Sheik Towelhead Mohammad for the WTC attack.  Later, if in the course of investigation no profound link to acts of terrorism can be proven,  I believe he should then be Mirandized and placed into the criminal system as prosecutors see fit.  But not until.

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. And we should not be extending the same rights guaranteed to regular citizens to alleged enemies of state.

As always, one man’s opinion.  In this case, not even a lawyer’s opinion – YMMV

-LTB

3 responses to “No Miranda Right for NYC Bombing Suspect

  1. LTB, I’m not a lawyer who handles criminal cases, so my understanding is based upon a criminal law class 24+ years ago and no study or experience since then. But, as usual, I have a strong opinion.

    First, the sanction for the violation of the “Miranda Warning” is to exclude all such evidence gathered from the confession (and all subsequent evidence which stems from that confession) . It does not mean the state can’t use other evidence independently obtained.

    If they already have enough evidence to fry him independantly and don’t need no stinkin confession, then it doesn’t matter whether they warn him or not.

    I think you are misreading the intent of the words “only applies to criminal proceedings.” I’m not certain, but I believe that is distinguishing between criminal and civil proceedings. In other words, if you are being sued by the government in a civil lawsuit, you are not entitled to Miranda Warnings. I don’t think it means a distinction between criminal and an act of war.

    Besides, I am not sure that we want to go down that road. Where does it stop, between trying to harm people? Is a brawl where you hurt seven people an act of war (they shouldn’t ta messed with LTB!)? I don’t liberals determining whether my ALLEGED acts are “acts of war” or simply a violation of the criminal law.

    Sure, I don’t want to give constitutional rights to no camel humping raghead who happened to become a U.S. citizen, but if we let them take away his rights, then next time they might take away mine and yours. So I in theory agree with him having all his constitutional rights.

    That said, I do not believe that Miranda Rights are a constitutional right. The warning stemmed from abusive cops torturing citizens and coercing confessions. The warning is a prophylactic measure to protect against coerced testimony. I believe that if some dumb raghead or anybody else is too damn stupid to know his rights then he loses them. Cops don’t warn you that you have the right not to let them search your car. So I disagree with the law itself as concocted by liberal activist judges.

    And nothing I wrote here should ever be construed as somehow agreeing with that shithead Dan (“Little Charles Johnson”) Riehl.

  2. Lipton T. Bagg

    Actually my viewpoint is easier relayed in simple English (vs. “leagalese”):

    A action against a person or a municipality is a crime. An action against a state or national body is for lack of a better term, an act of aggression or an act of war.

    No one could argue OKC was not an act against a particular person or the municipality – it was an act of aggression against the government of a nation. That is not a crime – it’s a terrorist act.

    As was true with the WTC bombing, 9/11 and other such things.

    This guy was not mad at a particular person. He was not mad at Comedy Central. He was mad at the U.S. and aimed to randomly murder her citizens. This is also an act of aggression, IMHO, not a simple crime. His confession somewhat seals the deal.

    Had he sought to injury or kill an individual – or perhaps destroy the mortgage company that foreclosed on his home – I could see that as a crime.

    I do believe there is a difference – a profound difference – in the two scenarios. And while I remain a strong and proud advocate of individual rights – it seems as unreasonable to call this a crime as it is to call 9/11 a crime. The level of destruction – in itself – seems an inaccurate way to differentiate the two.

    Again, my opinion – YMMV.

    -LTB

  3. I don’t disagree with you. You disagree with the way the law is, and so do I. I think Miranda was wrongly decided. The right not to incriminate yourself is not the same as the right to be read some dumbass (that’s “legalese”) statement concocted by the Supreme Court. My ideal if I were the Supreme Court would be that you could not be coerced to testify against yourself and you could not be coearced or tortured into giving a confession. But if you are too F’n idiot to know you have that right, then tough on you.

    That’s how we treat police searches of vehicles. Nobody has to allow a cop to search their vehicle, and no cop has to read you your rights not to allow the search. We have a right not to have our cars searched, which is no less sancrosanct than the right not to incriminate ourselves, but the former we get no warning and the latter we do. Makes no sense to me.

    I’d throw the Miranda Warning out the window. You’d distinguish based upon what the actor was intending when he did the bad act. Neither of them are the law, they are the law as we believe it ought to be. Just as I believe poker and pot should be legalized, and pink shirts for men should be banned. “There’s the way things are, and the way things ought to be.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s