If you do a little research on the Miranda Warning, you will find that the United States Supreme Court, back in 1966, determined that a suspect in crime who is detained and is being questioned for information other than basic identity, must be provided a Miranda Warning based on the Fifth and Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
So we come to a question of which is more expedient; to follow the Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court or ignore it? Our United States Senators are sworn to uphold the Constitution when they take office. Here is what two of them have to say:
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and other top Republicans on Tuesday said the suspect arrested for attempting to explode a car bomb in New York City should not have been read his Miranda rights.McCain called the move “a bad mistake,” and said the suspect, Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Pakistan, was not entitled to be Mirandized.
“Its not a constitutional right,” McCain said. “And he may have to be designated an enemy combatant.
“Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a former state supreme court justice, also said the suspect should not have been read a Miranda warning, which essentially alerts a suspect to a right to remain silent and a right to an attorney.Federal officials said Tuesday that Shahzad was read his rights today after being questioned for a period of time. Attorney General Eric Holder said Shahzad is still cooperating and providing information to authorities.
via The Washington Examiner.
If we are so afraid of these terrorist that we abandon the Constitution, then the terrorist have won. We are either of country of laws or of anarchy. In spite of the terrible acts that Shahzad has allegedly committed, we must punish him lawfully.
