Yes

by Dean Ralph

Created on: September 12, 2010   Last Updated: September 13, 2010

Considering myself to be a Conservative American as well as a Military service member, I had to think long and hard before voting on this topic. I believe in the basic Human rights of all individuals no matter where they were born or where they live. However, the Miranda rights apply only to those accused of crimes inside United States Jurisdiction and criminal courts. Herein lies the difficulty of this issue.

A man leaves an explosives laden vehicle in a heavily populated area of one of the Country's largest, most populated cities. We are currently engaged in armed conflict with terrorists of primarily Middle Eastern Heritage. The man suspected, accused and arrested for leaving this vehicle is an American with Middle Eastern Ancestry. Does this automatically make the man a terrorist. By definition, yes. Technically, however without knowing the reasons behind the attempted bombing one cannot claim with absolute certainty whether this was a criminal act or an act of War.

If it was in fact an act of war, one can make the argument that Faisal Shahzad is not entitled to the Miranda rights of a U.S. citizen, but rather the rights afforded an enemy combatant by the Geneva Convention. Someone who should be kept away from civilian criminals and Civilian Criminal Courts. He should be taken to the modern equivalent of a Prisoner of War camp at Guantanamo Bay Cuba. He should be held and tried by the standards set forth by the Geneva Convention and Military Law. 

However, there are two arguments for Faisal Shahzad to be Mirandized. First and foremost. Until his motives were known, he should have been Mirandized. Was his act of terrorism an act against the United States or was it an act of anger or mental instability.  If it was found to be an act of a criminal Nature, not unlike that of the Uni-Bomber or another serial killer or mass murderer in U.S. History, then he is entitled to the Miranda rights as afforded every U.S. Citizen by the U.S. Constitution. He should be held criminally liable for his actions and the appropriate measures taken, the first of which is being Mirandized.

The second argument in favor of Faisal Shahzad being Mirandized is the most important one. HE IS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES. Whether or not his motives were criminal or an act of war he must be mirandized upon arrest for a crime inside the United States. If the act was of a criminal nature then he goes to trial for the civilian charges. If the act was determined to be an act of War then he goes on trial for Treason in the Civilian Courts and then, provided he is not sentenced to death, transferred to Guantanamo Bay to be held as an Enemy combatant. His citizenship revoked and he then becomes classified as a Prisoner of War.

Regardless of your feelings about Faisal Shahzad, The War on Terror, the United States Constitution or the Geneva convention, it all boils down to one simple fact. As a U.S. Citizen, committing a crime against a person or persons, on U.S soil, he is entitled to his Miranda rights. Do we fully agree that he is deserving of those rights? That is not and should not be an issue, because the Law says he is entitled to those rights. Until that law is amended, then it needs to be followed.  

Learn more about this author, Dean Ralph.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.