Republicans Contest Use of Miranda Rights

Along with the Times Square bomb story has come an interesting debate over Miranda rights, as Republicans call the using of these rights a mistake in the case of Faisal Shahzad. However, despite what some Republican representatives, such as Senator John McCain, have said about the danger of using the Miranda warning with terrorist cases, it is still absolutely the right thing to do because it ensures that the person being taken into custody has their rights respected, it ensures that any evidence found can be effectively used against that person in court, and symbolizes the United States’ effort to uphold consistent and fair legal standards. While these Republicans may be correct when they claim that more information can be extracted in instances without use of the Miranda warning, this practice can become discriminatory and defeats the purpose of the Miranda rights.

According to reporters, Shahzad was initially questioned without hearing his Miranda rights based on the safety exception rule, which states that authorities are not required to read a detainee their rights if there is an immediate threat to anyone. After the initial questioning, Shahzad was read his Miranda rights, and continued to cooperate with investigators, admitting to the attacks and claiming that he acted independently. This was all done according to United States law, and was seemingly a job well done by investigators until some Republican representatives decided to call the reading of the Miranda rights a mistake since this was a terrorist case, and investigators were “lucky” that Shahzad cooperated. This desire to deprive someone of their rights reflects the phenomenon of hypocrisy that William Schulz talks about in his book “In Our Own Best Interest.” Schulz points out that the United States, supposedly a champion for human rights around the world, has many areas of human rights that it struggles with as it is, and therefore has lost a lot of credibility in the international realm.

It’s one thing to not read overseas terrorists their Miranda rights (although that’s still wrong, legally and morally), but to suggest not reading them to a United States citizen within the borders of his own country is a clear-cut desire to eliminate someone’s rights. It’s not a bad thing for the Republican representatives to look out for Americans and attempt to gather as much information in the name of safety as possible, but this case may have been the wrong one for them to choose. Not only was Shahzad a United States citizen, but he was completely cooperative throughout his entire investigation according to all reports, and on top of it all, the bomb was a dud.

Miranda rights are important in the United States because they ensure that every person who gets taken into custody for questioning has their rights respected, and they are not taken advantage of by police or investigators. The United States claims to care about rights for its citizens, and this is one area where the government can actually back up that claim. The Miranda rights are also an important tool for immigrants and others who may struggle with the English language or American law.

These rights are also important to the legal system in the United States because, since the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision, any information gathered without stating the rights of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments cannot be used against the detainee in court. By reading the Miranda rights, the investigator ensures that any information the person in question is willing to give can be used against them in court, thereby aiding the judicial process while at the same time recognizing rights from two different amendments.

Additionally, these rights guarantee more fair legal standards in the United States, preventing uneducated or otherwise ignorant individuals from being abused through the legal process of being investigated and taken to court. The rights require that the investigator tell the person in custody that they have the right to remain silent if they choose, and also that they will be represented by an attorney whether they have money to afford their own or not. Fair legal standards are another thing that all Americans enjoy, yet this is only the case because it is applied universally only with the safety exception.

The denial to read a suspect their Miranda rights before investigation is another rights violation that can be used against the United States by any nation that it wishes to influence. Rights violations in the United States drastically lower the ability for the country to spread human rights to countries that desperately need it, and, as Schulz claims, countries are unwilling to follow hypocritical examples such as that of the United States. The United States government must be more careful with its criticisms and denials of rights if it wants to become a significant player in the international world of human rights, and the restriction in the use of Miranda rights is only a step backwards for the country.



Condon, Stephanie. “Faisal Shahzad Was Read Miranda Rights After Initial
Questioning,” CBS News. May 4, 2010. http://www.cbsnews.com
/8301-503544_162-20004108-503544.html

Schulz, William F. "In Our Own Best Interest: How Defending Human Rights Benefits
Us All." Beacon Press, Boston, 2002.