7 ms·
Being read your Miranda rights also serves as an explicit acknowledgement by the state that you have those rights. Most of the time, this isn't really important
by lbarrow 14y ago
Being read your Miranda rights also serves as an explicit acknowledgement by the state that you have those rights. Most of the time, this isn't really important, but in this case it would have served a very important purpose.
The Bush administration systematically created a legal netherworld for people they captured on suspicion of terrorism -- people usually referred to as "enemy combatants". They weren't arrested per se, so they weren't entitled to a trial, lawyers, or even the basic rights we associate with a criminal trial such as protection against self-incrimination (i.e. the right to remain silent). On the other hand, the administration argued they weren't prisoners of war either, so the Geneva Convention didn't apply to them.
By defining enemy combatants in this negative way -- in terms of what they are not -- the Bush administration pushed enemy combatant status into a grey area where no pre-existing legal rules seemed to apply. That's how they argued that torture was legal: they said that laws prohibiting torture only applied to prisoners of war or people charged with crimes, and that because enemy combatants weren't either of those things, they could legally be tortured.
If they had read this guy his Miranda rights, the Obama administration would have made it clear that they would treat his future as a police matter and that they were rejecting the enemy combatant framework in this case. They failed to do that, and I think it's a wasted opportunity.
(By the way, when justifying drone strikes and the courtroom procedures at Guantanamo Bay, the Obama administration has continued the enemy combatant framework that Bush's lawyers established.)
- mtgx 14y agoThat's some really twisted mental gymnastics there. Torture is bad, because it's torture. It doesn't matter if you're a criminal or a human-monkey. How can they get away with it for so long? At least they didn't say torture is legal "because he's not a white guy", but their logic here is not that far off from that.
- pyre 14y agoThey are also getting away with it because the torture isn't of the "strap electrodes to his genitals" variety, which most people would immediately reject. Stuff like "loud music," "putting a holy book in a toilet," or "make him think he's drowning," don't evoke the same sort of immediate reaction. If the administration were openly performing at "Inquisition" levels of torture, there would be massive public outcry.
- lbarrow 14y agoOn the other hand they openly talked about extreme sleep deprivation (a few hours a week for months on end) and "walling", which is where you throw someone into a wall over and over.
- thomasz 14y agoI fail to see the difference between "waterboarding" and "strap electrodes to his genitals" torture.
- jlgreco 14y agoThat is because you understand what waterboarding is. The general public, at least at the time, seemed to lack a proper appreciation for what it really meant.
- ArtB 14y agoWaterboarding is torture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUkj9pjx3H0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUkj9pjx3H0
- dllthomas 13y agoI think parent, grandparent, and possibly great-grandparent share that view. The point was that back when we were having these discussions this was a lot less obvious to a lot of people. Which, to a certain extent, the video you linked demonstrates - Mancow hardly would have volunteered to undergo it if he didn't underestimate its awfulness (and he said it changed his views on the subject).
- jackpirate 14y agoYou have a lot more respect for the public than I do.
- analog 14y agoActually the Spanish Inquisition used similar methods, including waterboarding [1]. Certainly some of the US prisoners have been tortured to death [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Torture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Torture [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilawar_(torture_victim) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilawar_(torture_victim)
- newbie12 14y agoDon't blame Bush, the Obama administration Justice department created the Miranda exception for "operational terrorists". This has nothing to do with enemy combatants; rather, there is the possibility that an active terror suspect on US soil has information about an active threat to public safety, and the police have a right (and duty) to question him about possible threats.
- pfortuny 14y agoThey have the duty to do that, only he has the right not to answer, despite not having been told so. You have to defend even terrorists' rights if you want yours to stand.
- dsfasfasf 14y ago>>You have to defend even terrorists' rights if you want yours to stand. Completely agree with this. Unfortunately most people are too stupid to realize that in order to protect your constitutionals rights you must also protect the rights of people you do not like, i.e. hate spouting religious extremists, of any religion. Even the rights of killers like the Boston bombers must be protected if we want ours to be protected.
- sliverstorm 13y agoI'm with you as far as suspects. Suspects should have their rights protected. Convicted felons, however, we already deny a number of constitutional rights de-facto. E.g., right to bear arms and freedom of travel.
- ComputerGuru 13y agoPlease tell me when he was convicted? I do not know if you were simply clarifying the parent post or actually referring to the Boston bomber, but the fact of the matter is, you become a "convicted felon" when you've found guilty in the court of law.
- bubblelamp 14y agoBush still living rent free in your head eh? Your post might be taken more seriously by those who know and follow politics if you acknowledged that Obama didn't just carry on with many of Bush's policies, but enacted new laws that make Bush's interpretations pale in comparison.
- mcgwiz 14y agoAgreed. I will add that, in the absence of the Executive Branch making such a substantial signal (as opposed to the rhetorical signals in Obama's speech), at least the "fourth branch" has shone a light on the matter. It is a weak light no doubt, and is characteristic of the spineless institution of local broadcast journalism, but the fact that the issue was mentioned at all implies an evolution of the American psyche on this. If Obama, in his heart, believes in "fairness and justice for all", he has no better opportunity to demonstrate it. Also, I keep thinking about how events like this (e.g. 9/11) engender sympathy and support from other nations. America can build on that goodwill--rather than dishonoring, abusing, or squandering it--and regain a fraction of international moral stature by ensuring Tsarnaev is treated as legally and morally fair as possible. This is a longer term, strategic goal (i.e. politically, socially difficult) that has been undermined and overlooked for too long.
- youngerdryas 14y ago>regain a fraction of international moral stature By reading him his miranda rights? He is going to be put to death. The US doesn't need to engender sympathy it needs a credible peer.
- tomrod 14y agoI'm not sure that's true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_Commonwealth_of_Massachusetts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_Commo...
- koenigdavidmj 14y agoFederal terrorism charges are almost assuredly going to be filed, too.