Mirandizing US Citizens

I'm fascinated by the current debate about denying U.S. citizens deemed terror suspects Miranda rights.
I'm fascinated because there are a lot of posters who seem to think this is a good idea.
I'm confused because I think 'Miranda' would be one of the rights us ATS'ers must support unequivocally, as an element of Free speech!
Here's how I see it: Today you want to deny American citizens their Miranda rights based on a government classification of them as 'terrorists.'
This means that you deny them their right to remain silent, their understanding that if they speak, anything they say can be used to prosecute them, and you deny them their right to legal counsel: arguably basic human rights.
Doesn't that give government the power to pick and choose who amongst us US citizens has Miranda rights?
So Let's say that someday, people who carry guns and post on ATS are declared potential terrorists and enemies of the state. If you all who support denying Miranda to US citizens are deemed terrorists, you've just managed to deny yourself a few of your most basic rights.
So, as I see it, anyone who wants to deny citizens like Shazahd his Miranda rights are setting themselves up for the day when a potentially despotic government can declare YOU an enemy of the state and deny you your Miranda rights.
It just seems incredibly short sighted.
I'm pretty solid on my thinking here but maybe someone can say something that would convince me that EVER denying any US citizen his/her Miranda rights, no matter what they're ACCUSED of, chips away at the safeguards of a free and democratic society.

I agree that it's shortsighted to say that anyone should be denied their Miranda Rights. However, the majority of people are shortsighted and will accept anything the government tells them/does as long as they aren't personally affected. However, it's possible that denying Miranda Rights may be necessary for national security and such, I'm not really sure I can think of such a situation at the moment, but it's possible I guess. However, Democracy has entirely failed anyway. It's been shown to be about as effective when applied to real life as Communism and Anarchism has.

Geez, I don't think Democracy has failed. I'm a follower of Churchill's when he said, 'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.'
Granted we're in a particularly tough spot what with corporate ownership of the People's Houses and a government that seems unable or uninterested in dealing with 9.9 percent unemployment, the horrific rise of health care costs, etc. etc. but hope springs eternal.
But despite all this mess: my greatest fear remains seeing us abandon our founding principles because times are tough or scary.

reply to post by kenochs


Democracy has failed, though. It's impossible to think that you can protect everyone, even people who want to take the nation down and give them rights. It's too easy to manipulate, allows corruption to become normal and acceptable due to the swaying of public opinion, etc. And, hope doesn't "spring eternal" at all. Things have gotten worse as time has gone on. To think it'll get better on its own is blind optimism. Also, our founding principles may have been great things, but so was Karl Marx's ideas of a perfect world and look how well that turned out when people tried to apply it in real life. All utopian ideas sound really nice, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily pan out in the end. Sure, it was a nice little idea that everyone should have freedom and be respected, etc., but it just doesn't work in a world/country full of people who are too uneducated to make proper decisions regarding who runs the country and makes decisions.

reply to post by Illuminatus!

Well I see all of your points but I don't concede them.
Perhaps all nations/civiliaztions ebb/flow naturally and perhaps as time speeds up their rate of rise/fall speeds up, and perhaps we're in the fall part (and even IF we are, I fully expect a new rise. I'm no skeptic when it comes to this countries potential). But despite the state of the United States, I would argue the persistence of Democracy as represented by the broader idea of natural human rights has been the overriding philosophical underpinning of successful human governance since the enlightenment. And that's a pretty long time.

And honestly, except when it hasn't worked, it's worked pretty well. And it has endured beyond the rise/fall of communist/socialist/Marxist/Fascist states pretty darn well.

reply to post by kenochs


You know the whole little catchy saying:

When they came for the Jews, I did nothing, for I am not a Jew. When they came for the Socialists, I did nothing, for I am not a Socialist. When they came for the labor leaders, the homosexuals, the gypsies, I did nothing, for I am none of these, and when they came for me, I was alone, there was no one to stand up for me. -- Martin Niemoller, a Lutheran pastor from Nazi Germany


I think this can apply in this case, as well.

People don't think until it affects them personally. Then, they want to stop the wheels that are already long ago set in motion, when it is too late.

Thanks for the reply. We all do well I think to keep that quote handy and insert the names of all the people we despise.

The thing about suspending Miranda Rights is that it assumes guilt before innocence instead of innocence before guilt. A citizen is entitled to their rights regardless of how much a particular case might make us cringe.

We can't go around suspending rights just because one is accused. If not I see a terrible precedence being set.

reply to post by AshleyD


I agree with you, and more frightening is the fact that some attempts have been made to label US citizens as terrorist because they have a gun and a Bible and believe in the Constitution, and fly the Don't Tread on Me flag.

I have said it before and shall say it again.

Individually, each one of these offences may not seem like "mucH' to some people, but taking each piece of the puzzle and putting it together and seeing the overwhelming bigger picture is harder to do.

Most people tend to live in dribs and drabs, according to what they can tolerate or have the time or inclination to pay any attention to. It does take a concerted effort to look for a bigger picture because there is such a flood of information coming out daily, weekly, and sometimes even hourly. It can be distressing and difficult to keep up.

When Obama spoke about the internet and other media items, he spoke a far deeper truth than some people saw, it is a distraction. The flood of information can be daunting, and literally, there is too much to keep up with. He banks on that, which is why he depends on the Friday Media dumps. People are too eager for their weekend to begin, the last thing they do is read the news.

I also think people find it far easier to stick to certain topics that interest them and not even pay attention to the other things. Especially if it opposes their world view. It is very easy to cop out and put their heads in the sand than it is to attempt to keep up anymore.

Obvisouly, the deeper meaning that Obama had was the information distracted from *his* point of view, which he wants people to remain "focused" on.

Opposing opinions don't count in his book.

Even with a huge public outcry, we are going to be told how it is for our own good, and we can't possibly be educated enough to know anything about it, so we should just hush and be good little citizens and pay our taxes.

Lest you be the next one on their terrorism watch list.

Originally posted by kenochs
Thanks for the reply. We all do well I think to keep that quote handy and insert the names of all the people we despise.

I don't think despise is a good term for how I see it.

I simply label myself something different, and I think that was the whole meaning of that saying.

reply to post by Libertygal


fair enough, different is definitely the better word.